Safety and efficacy of resolute @entity17650 -eluting stents compared with XXXX -eluting stents: a meta-analysis.

@entity1 @entity17650 @entity583 @entity2239 @entity715 @entity204
BACKGROUND: Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among @entity1 undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, there remains debate about differences in efficacy and the risk of stent @entity715 between the Resolute @entity17650 -eluting stent (R-ZES) and the @entity2239 -eluting stent (EES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the R-ZES compared with EES in @entity1 undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic literature search of electronic resources was performed using specific search terms until September 2014. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes between @entity1 treated with R-ZES and EES up to maximum available follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization. The primary safety end point was definite or probable stent @entity715 . Secondary safety end points were @entity204 and @entity583 . Five trials were identified, including a total of 9899 @entity1 . Compared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.24; P=0.50), definite or probable stent @entity715 (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.85; P=0.24), @entity204 (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P=0.91), and @entity583 (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36; P=0.39). Moreover, R-ZES and EES had similar risks of late definite or probable very late stent @entity715 (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.53-2.11; P=0.87). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was observed across trials. CONCLUSIONS: R-ZES and EES provide similar safety and efficacy among @entity1 undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
