Perspectives on the 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization: Fifty Years of Revascularization: Where Are We and Where Are We Heading?

The joint European Society of Cardiology and European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) guidelines on myocardial revascularization collect and summarize the evidence regarding decision-making, diagnostics, and therapeutics in various clinical scenarios of coronary artery disease, including elective, urgent, and emergency settings. The 2014 document updates and extends the effort started in 2010, year of the first edition of these guidelines. Importantly, this latest edition provides a systematic review of all randomized clinical trials performed since 1980, comparing different strategies of myocardial revascularization, including coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), balloon angioplasty, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents (BMS) and first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). This review aims to highlight the most relevant novelties introduced by the 2014 edition of the ESC/EACTS myocardial revascularization guidelines as compared with the previous edition and to describe similarities and differences with the American societies' guidelines.

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation should become the standard practice in coronary revascularization surgery†.

We read with great interest the large-scale network meta-analysis by Kowalewski et al. comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operated on using minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) or off-pump (OPCAB) with those undergoing surgery on conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) [1]. The authors actually integrated into single study two recently published meta-analysis comparing MiECC and OPCAB with conventional CPB, respectively [2, 3] into a single study. According to the results of this study, MiECC and OPCAB are both strongly associated with improved perioperative outcomes following CABG when compared with CABG performed on conventional CPB. The authors conclude that MiECC may represent an attractive compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB. After carefully reading the whole manuscript, it becomes evident that the role of MiECC is clearly undervalued. Detailed statistical analysis using the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities indicated that MiECC represented the safer and more effective intervention regarding all-cause mortality and protection from myocardial infarction, cerebral stroke, postoperative atrial fibrillation and renal dysfunction when compared with OPCAB. Even though no significant statistical differences were demonstrated between MiECC and OPCAB, the superiority of MiECC is obvious by the hierarchy of treatments in the probability analysis, which ranked MiECC as the first treatment followed by OPCAB and conventional CPB. Thus, MiECC does not represent a compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB, but an attractive dominant technique in CABG surgery. These results are consistent with the largest published meta-analysis by Anastasiadis et al. comparing MiECC versus conventional CPB including a total of 2770 patients. A significant decrease in mortality was observed when MiECC was used, which was also associated with reduced risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and neurological events [4]. Similarly, another recent meta-analysis by Benedetto et al. compared MiECC versus OPCAB and resulted in comparable outcomes between these two surgical techniques [5]. As stated in the text, superiority of MiECC observed in the current network meta-analysis, when compared with OPCAB, could be attributed to the fact that MiECC offers the potential for complete revascularization, whereas OPCAB poses a challenge for unexperienced surgeons; especially when distal marginal branches on the lateral and/or posterior wall of the heart need revascularization. This is reflected by a significantly lower number of distal anastomoses performed in OPCAB when compared with conventional CPB. Therefore, taking into consideration the literature published up to date, including the results of the current article, we advocate that MiECC should be integrated in the clinical practice guidelines as a state-of-the-art technique and become a standard practice for perfusion in coronary revascularization surgery.

Impact of Diabetic Status on Outcomes After Revascularization With Drug-Eluting Stents in Relation to Coronary Artery Disease Complexity: Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6081 Patients.

BACKGROUND Diabetes mellitus and angiographic coronary artery disease complexity are intertwined and unfavorably affect prognosis after percutaneous coronary interventions, but their relative impact on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains controversial. This study determined drug-eluting stents outcomes in relation to diabetic status and coronary artery disease complexity as assessed by the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score. METHODS AND RESULTS In a patient-level pooled analysis from 4 all-comers trials, 6081 patients were stratified according to diabetic status and according to the median SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 2 years. Diabetes mellitus was present in 1310 patients (22%), and new-generation drug-eluting stents were used in 4554 patients (75%). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 173 diabetics (14.5%) and 436 nondiabetic patients (9.9%; P<0.001). In adjusted Cox regression analyses, SYNTAX score and diabetes mellitus were both associated with the primary end point (P<0.001 and P=0.028, respectively; P for interaction, 0.07). In multivariable analyses, diabetic versus nondiabetic patients had higher risks of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.53; P=0.026) and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.01; P=0.002) but similar risks of cardiac death (hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.07; P=0.08) and myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.22; P=0.45), without significant interaction with SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11 for any of the end points. CONCLUSIONS In this population treated with predominantly new-generation drug-eluting stents, diabetic patients were at increased risk for repeat target-lesion revascularization consistently across the spectrum of disease complexity. The SYNTAX score was an independent predictor of 2-year outcomes but did not modify the respective effect of diabetes mellitus. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00297661, NCT00389220, NCT00617084, and NCT01443104.

Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND No data are available on the long-term performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES). We reported 2-year clinical outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation) trial, which compared BP-SES with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 2119 patients with minimal exclusion criteria were assigned to treatment with BP-SES (n=1063) or DP-EES (n=1056). Follow-up at 2 years was available for 2048 patients (97%). The primary end point was target-lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. At 2 years, target-lesion failure occurred in 107 patients (10.5%) in the BP-SES arm and 107 patients (10.4%) in the DP-EES arm (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, P=0.979). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and DP-EES with respect to cardiac death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62-1.63, P=0.984), target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.669), target-lesion revascularization (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81-1.71, P=0.403), and definite stent thrombosis (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56-3.44, P=0.485). There were 2 cases (0.2%) of definite very late stent thrombosis in the BP-SES arm and 4 cases (0.4%) in the DP-EES arm (P=0.423). In the prespecified subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, BP-SES was associated with a lower risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP-EES (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99, P=0.043, Pinteraction=0.026). CONCLUSIONS Comparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP-SES and DP-EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Revascularization Treatment of Emergency Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland: Results from a Nationwide, Cross-Sectional Study in Switzerland for 2010-2011

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide and in Switzerland. When applied, treatment guidelines for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) improve the clinical outcome and should eliminate treatment differences by sex and age for patients whose clinical situations are identical. In Switzerland, the rate at which STEMI patients receive revascularization may vary by patient and hospital characteristics. AIMS: To examine all hospitalizations in Switzerland from 2010-2011 to determine if patient or hospital characteristics affected the rate of revascularization (receiving either a percutaneous coronary intervention or a coronary artery bypass grafting) in acute STEMI patients. DATA AND METHODS: We used national data sets on hospital stays, and on hospital infrastructure and operating characteristics, for the years 2010 and 2011, to identify all emergency patients admitted with the main diagnosis of acute STEMI. We then calculated the proportion of patients who were treated with revascularization. We used multivariable multilevel Poisson regression to determine if receipt of revascularization varied by patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 9,696 cases we identified, 71.6% received revascularization. Patients were less likely to receive revascularization if they were female, and 80 years or older. In the multivariable multilevel Poisson regression analysis, there was a trend for small-volume hospitals performing fewer revascularizations but this was not statistically significant while being female (Relative Proportion = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.97) and being older than 80 years was still associated with less frequent revascularization. CONCLUSION: Female and older patients were less likely to receive revascularization. Further research needs to clarify whether this reflects differential application of treatment guidelines or limitations in this kind of routine data.

Drug eluting balloons

Ever since the first percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) was carried out in Switzerland in 1977, restenosis remains a major drawback of this minimally invasive treatment intervention. Numerous attempts to increase vessel patency after PTA have included systemic medications and endovascular brachytherapy, but these techniques have not met our expectations in preventing restenosis. Nitinol stents have been shown to reduce rates of restenosis and target lesion revascularization in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of long femoropopliteal obstructions. Despite further technical refinements in nitinol stent technology, restenosis occurs in approximately every third patient undergoing femoropopliteal stenting. Similarly, initial clinical trials with drug-eluting stents have failed to indicate restenosis inhibition in femoropopliteal segment. Unfortunately, restenosis rates after below-the-knee PTA and stenting have been reported to be even higher than those following femoropopliteal revascularization. Current concepts for the prevention and treatment of restenosis after PTA or stenting include the sustained release of antiproliferative paclitaxel into the vessel wall. Drug eluting balloons are a promising, novel technology aimed at inhibiting restenosis after PTA. Its clinical efficacy in reducing restenosis has already been proven for coronary arteries as well as for the femoropopliteal segment. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical utility of drug-eluting balloons for lower limb endovascular interventions.

Results of the randomized, placebo-controlled clopidogrel and acetylsalicylic acid in bypass surgery for peripheral arterial disease (CASPAR) trial

OBJECTIVE: Dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is superior to ASA alone in patients with acute coronary syndromes and in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We sought to determine whether clopidogrel plus ASA conferred benefit on limb outcomes over ASA alone in patients undergoing below-knee bypass grafting. METHODS: Patients undergoing unilateral, below-knee bypass graft for atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were enrolled 2 to 4 days after surgery and were randomly assigned to clopidogrel 75 mg/day plus ASA 75 to 100 mg/day or placebo plus ASA 75 to 100 mg/day for 6 to 24 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of index-graft occlusion or revascularization, above-ankle amputation of the affected limb, or death. The primary safety endpoint was severe bleeding (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue plasminogen activator for Occluded coronary arteries [GUSTO] classification). RESULTS: In the overall population, the primary endpoint occurred in 149 of 425 patients in the clopidogrel group vs 151 of 426 patients in the placebo (plus ASA) group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.23). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, the primary endpoint was significantly reduced by clopidogrel in prosthetic graft patients (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.95; P = .025) but not in venous graft patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.94-1.67, not significant [NS]). A significant statistical interaction between treatment effect and graft type was observed (P(interaction) = .008). Although total bleeds were more frequent with clopidogrel, there was no significant difference between the rates of severe bleeding in the clopidogrel and placebo (plus ASA) groups (2.1% vs 1.2%). CONCLUSION: The combination of clopidogrel plus ASA did not improve limb or systemic outcomes in the overall population of PAD patients requiring below-knee bypass grafting. Subgroup analysis suggests that clopidogrel plus ASA confers benefit in patients receiving prosthetic grafts without significantly increasing major bleeding risk.

Vascular hospitalization rates and costs in patients with peripheral artery disease in the United States

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is common and imposes a high risk of major systemic and limb ischemic events. The REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry is an international prospective registry of patients at risk of atherothrombosis caused by established arterial disease or the presence of 3 atherothrombotic risk factors. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the 2-year rates of vascular-related hospitalizations and associated costs in US patients with established PAD across patient subgroups. Symptomatic PAD at enrollment was identified on the basis of current intermittent claudication with an ankle-brachial index (ABI) <0.90 or a history of lower-limb revascularization or amputation. Asymptomatic PAD was diagnosed on the basis of an enrollment ABI <0.90 in the absence of symptoms. Overall, 25 763 of the total 68 236-patient REACH cohort were enrolled from US sites; 2396 (9.3%) had symptomatic and 213 (0.8%) had asymptomatic PAD at baseline. One- and cumulative 2-year follow-up data were available for 2137 (82%) and 1677 (64%) of US REACH patients with either symptomatic or asymptomatic PAD, respectively. At 2 years, mean cumulative hospitalization costs, per patient, were $7445, $7000, $10 430, and $11 693 for patients with asymptomatic PAD, a history of claudication, lower-limb amputation, and revascularization, respectively (P=0.007). A history of peripheral intervention (lower-limb revascularization or amputation) was associated with higher rates of subsequent procedures at both 1 and 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of PAD is high. Recurring hospitalizations and repeat revascularization procedures suggest that neither patients, physicians, nor healthcare systems should assume that a first admission for a lower-extremity PAD procedure serves as a permanent resolution of this costly and debilitating condition.

Impact of stent overlap on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation

Objectives We compared the angiographic and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with and without overlap of drug-eluting stents (DES). Background DES overlap has been associated with delayed healing and increased inflammation in experimental studies, but its impact on clinical outcome is not well established. Methods We analyzed the angiographic and clinical outcomes of 1,012 patients treated with DES in the SIRTAX (Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization) trial according to the presence or absence of stent overlap and the number of stents per vessel: 134 (13.2%) patients with multiple DES in a vessel with overlap, 199 (19.7%) patients with multiple DES in a vessel without overlap, and 679 (67.1%) patients with 1 DES per vessel. Results Angiographic follow-up at 8 months showed an increased late loss in DES overlap patients (0.33 ± 0.61 mm) compared with the other groups (0.18 ± 0.43 mm and 0.15 ± 0.38 mm, p < 0.01). The smallest minimal lumen diameter was located at the zone of stent overlap in 17 (68%) of 25 patients with stent overlap who underwent target lesion revascularization. Major adverse cardiac events were more common in patients with DES overlap (34 events, 25.4%) than in the other groups (42 events, 21.1% and 95 events, 14.0%) at 3 years (p < 0.01). Both the risk of target lesion revascularization (20.2% vs. 16.1% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.01) and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (17.2% vs. 14.1% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.01) were increased in patients with DES overlap compared with the other groups. Conclusions DES overlap occurs in >10% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in routine clinical practice and is associated with impaired angiographic and long-term clinical outcome, including death or myocardial infarction. (Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization; NCT00297661).

The impact of body mass index on the one year outcomes of patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention with Biolimus- and Sirolimus-eluting stents (from the LEADERS Trial)

The aim of this analysis was to assess the effect of body mass index (BMI) on 1-year outcomes in patients enrolled in a contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer to a biolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer. A total of 1,707 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with either biolimus-eluting stents (n = 857) or sirolimus-eluting stents (n = 850). Patients were assigned to 1 of 3 groups according to BMI: normal (<25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25 to 30 kg/m(2)), or obese (>30 kg/m(2)). At 1 year, the incidence of the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization was assessed. In addition, rates of clinically justified target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed. Cox proportional-hazards analysis, adjusted for clinical differences, was used to develop models for 1-year mortality. Forty-five percent of the patients (n = 770) were overweight, 26% (n = 434) were obese, and 29% (n = 497) had normal BMIs. At 1-year follow-up, the cumulative rate of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the obese group (8.7% in normal-weight, 11.3% in overweight, and 14.5% in obese patients, p = 0.01). BMI (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.14, p = 0.04) was an independent predictor of stent thrombosis. Stent type had no impact on the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization at 1 year in the 3 BMI groups (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.83, p = 0.73). In conclusion, BMI was an independent predictor of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year clinical follow-up. The higher incidence of stent thrombosis in the obese group may suggest the need for a weight-adjusted dose of clopidogrel.

Pooled analysis of trials comparing titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary stenting

We performed a pooled analysis of three trials comparing titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents (BAS) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in 1,774 patients. All patients were followed for 12 months. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), death and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis (ST) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including MI, death and TLR. There were 922 patients in the BAS group and 852 in the PES group. BAS significantly reduced the risk of recurrent MI (2.7% vs. 5.6%; risk ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81; p = 0.004) and MACE (8.9% vs. 12.6%; risk ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.94; p = 0.02) during the 12 months of follow up. In contrast, the differences between BAS and PES were not statistically significant with respect to TLR (risk ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.68-1.41), death (risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.61-1.51) and definite ST (risk ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-1.47). In conclusion, the results of this analysis suggest that BAS is effective in reducing TLR and improves clinical outcomes by reducing MI and MACE compared with PES.

Drug-eluting stents: limitations of early generation and progress with newer generation devices

The success of first generation drug-eluting stents, namely by reducing restenosis and the need of repeat revascularization procedures is hampered by some limitations affecting device safety. Intense research efforts helped to identify these shortcomings and direct research to develop newer generation drug-eluting stents with the potential to circumvent these drawbacks. This review will discuss limitations of early generation drug-eluting stents, focus on solutions provided by newer generation devices, and shed light on unresolved issues and potential future solutions.

Current status of drug-eluting stents

First-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) with controlled release of sirolimus or paclitaxel from durable polymers compared with bare-metal stents have been consistently shown to reduce the risk of repeat revascularization procedures due to restenosis. The superior efficacy was found across a wide range of patients and lesion subsets and persisted up to 5 years whereas similar outcomes have been observed in terms of death and myocardial infarction. Newer generation DES have been developed with the goal to further improve upon the safety profile of first-generation DES while maintaining efficacy. These platforms include DES with improved and more biocompatible durable polymers, DES using bioabsorbable polymers for drug release, DES with polymer-free drug release, and fully bioabsorbable DES. Newer generation DES with durable polymers such as zotarolimus-eluting or everolimus-eluting XIENCE V stents have been directly compared with first-generation DES. Most recent results of large scale clinical trials are encouraging in terms of similar or increased efficacy while improving safety by reducing the rates of myocardial infarctions and stent thrombosis. DES using biodegradable polymers for drug release represent the next technological modification and preliminary results are favorable and demonstrate similar angiographic and clinical efficacy as first-generation DES, but only longer term follow-up and investigation in larger patient cohorts will determine whether their use is associated with improved long-term safety. Fully bioabsorbable stents represent another innovative approach. Whether this innovative concept will enter into clinical routine remains yet to be determined.

Value of the SYNTAX score for risk assessment in the all-comers population of the randomized multicenter LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the predictive value of the SYNTAX score (SXscore) for major adverse cardiac events in the all-comers population of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial. BACKGROUND: The SXscore has been shown to be an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients with multivessel disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SXscore was prospectively collected in 1,397 of the 1,707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial (patients after surgical revascularization were excluded). Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up, according to 1 of 3 SXscore tertiles. RESULTS: The 1,397 patients were divided into tertiles based on the SXscore in the following fashion: SXscore8 and 16 (SXhigh) (n=461). At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major cardiac event-free survival in the highest tertile of SXscore (SXlow=92.2%, SXmid=91.1%, and SXhigh=84.6%; p<0.001). Death occurred in 1.5% of SXlow patients, 2.1% of SXmid patients, and 5.6% of SXhigh patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29 to 3.01; p=0.002). The myocardial infarction rate tended to be higher in the SXhigh group. Target vessel revascularization was 11.3% in the SXhigh group compared with 6.3% and 7.8% in the SXlow and SXmid groups, respectively (HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.75; p=0.006). Composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target vessel revascularization was 7.8%, 8.9%, and 15.4% in the SXlow, SXmid, and SXhigh groups, respectively (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.81; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SXscore, when applied to an all-comers patient population treated with drug-eluting stents, may allow prospective risk stratification of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. (LEADERS Trial Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating; NCT00389220).

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol-mandated angiographic follow-up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug-eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients.