» Articles » PMID: 20129543

Long-term Clinical and Economic Analysis of the Endeavor Drug-eluting Stent Versus the Driver Bare-metal Stent: 4-year Results from the ENDEAVOR II Trial (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578...

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2010 Feb 5
PMID 20129543
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: This study was designed to evaluate long-term clinical and economic outcomes for subjects receiving Endeavor drug-eluting versus Driver bare-metal stents (both Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, California).

Background: Early studies found that the drug-eluting stent (DES) was a clinically and economically attractive alternative to the bare-metal stent; however, associations between DES and very late stent thrombosis suggest that longer follow-up is required.

Methods: We used clinical, resource use and follow-up data from 1,197 subjects randomized to receive Endeavor (n = 598) versus Driver (n = 599) stents in ENDEAVOR II (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) study with Medicare cost weights and quality of life adjustments applied from secondary sources. We compared differences through 4-year follow-up (1,440 days).

Results: Patients in both treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. The use of Endeavor versus Driver reduced 4-year target vessel revascularization rates per 100 subjects (10.4 vs. 21.5; difference: -11.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -16.0 to -6.1; p < 0.001), with no difference in the rates per 100 subjects of death (5.0 vs. 5.2; difference: -0.2; 95% CI: -2.7 to 2.4; p = 0.90) or nonfatal myocardial infarction (3.2 vs. 4.4; difference: -1.2; 95% CI: -3.4 to 1.0; p = 0.29). After discounting at a 3% annual rate, there were no differences in quality-adjusted survival days (1,093 vs. 1,090; difference: 3; 95% CI: -13 to 19; p = 0.69) and total medical costs ($21,483 vs. $21,680; difference: -$198; 95% CI: -$1,608 to $1,207; p = 0.78).

Conclusions: The use of Endeavor versus Driver was associated with a significant reduction in target vessel revascularization through 4-year follow-up with no difference in death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, quality-adjusted survival, or total medical costs. These results are comparable to those for other studies evaluating drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents. (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [ENDEAVOR II]; NCT00614848).

Citing Articles

Five-Year Efficacy and Safety of TiNO-Coated Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis.

Daoud F, Catargi B, Karjalainen P, Gerbaud E J Clin Med. 2023; 12(21).

PMID: 37959416 PMC: 10649952. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216952.


Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between First and Second Generation Drug-eluting Stents in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Single-center Retrospective Study.

Liu R, Xiong F, Wen Y, Ma Y, Yao Y, Gao Z Chin Med J (Engl). 2017; 130(14):1654-1661.

PMID: 28685714 PMC: 5520551. DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.209904.


Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Coronary Intervention with Drug-Eluting Stents or Bare-Metal Stents: A Nationwide Population Study.

Sung S, Chen T, Cheng H, Lee J, Lang H, Chen C Acta Cardiol Sin. 2017; 33(1):10-19.

PMID: 28115802 PMC: 5241431. DOI: 10.6515/acs20160608a.


Patient-level costs of major cardiovascular conditions: a review of the international literature.

Nicholson G, Gandra S, Halbert R, Richhariya A, Nordyke R Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016; 8():495-506.

PMID: 27703385 PMC: 5036826. DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S89331.


Chinese Herbal Medicines Might Improve the Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Decision-Analytic Markov Model.

Wang S, Wang C, Wang P, Xu H, Chen K, Shi D Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015; 2015:639267.

PMID: 26495019 PMC: 4606398. DOI: 10.1155/2015/639267.