A randomized, prospective, two-center comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent and zotarolimus-eluting stent in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: The SEZE trial

Background The zotarolimus-eluting stent has shown larger in-stent late lumen loss compared to sirolimus-eluting stents in previous studies. However, this has not been thoroughly evaluated in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial evaluating angiographic outcomes in patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction, treated with zotarolimus-eluting stents or sirolimus-eluting stents. From March 2007 to February 2009, 122 patients were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting stents or sirolimus-eluting stents in a 1:1 fashion. The primary endpoint was 9-month in-stent late lumen loss confirmed by coronary angiography, and secondary endpoints were percent diameter stenosis, binary restenosis rate, major adverse cardiac events (a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization), and late-acquired incomplete stent apposition. Results Angiographic in-stent late lumen loss was significantly higher in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group compared to the sirolimus-eluting stent group ((0.49 +/- 0.65) mm vs. (0.10 +/- 0.46) mm, P=0.001). Percent diameter stenosis at 9-month follow-up was also larger in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group ((30.0 +/- 17.9)% vs. (17.6 +/- 14.0)%, P<0.001). In-segment analysis showed similar findings. There were no significant differences in binary restenosis rate, major adverse cardiac events, and late-acquired incomplete stent apposition. Conclusions Compared to sirolimus-eluting stents, the zotarolimus-eluting stent is associated with significantly higher in-stent late lumen loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up in the treatment of ST elevation myocardial infarction. Although there was no significant difference in 1-year clinical outcomes, the clinical implication of increased late lumen loss should be further studied. Chin Med J 2012;125(19):3373-3381