Outcomes after unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: A multicenter, prospective cohort study

Duk Woo Park, Young Hak Kim, Hae Geun Song, Jung Min Ahn, Won Jang Kim, Jong Young Lee, Soo Jin Kang, Seung Whan Lee, Cheol Whan Lee, Seong Wook Park, Sung Cheol Yun, Sung Ho Her, Seung Ho Hur, Jin Sik Park, Myeong Kon Kim, Yun Seok Choi, Hyun Sook Kim, Jang Hyun Cho, Sang Gon Lee, Yong Whi ParkMyung Ho Jeong, Bong Ki Lee, Nae Hee Lee, Do-Sun Lim, Junghan Yoon, Ki Bae Seung, Won Yong Shin, Seung-Woon Rha, Kee Sik Kim, Seung Jea Tahk, Byoung Eun Park, Taehoon Ahn, Joo Young Yang, Yong Seok Jeong, Jay Hyun Rhew, Seung Jung Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)


Background-It remains unclear whether there are differences in the safety and efficacy outcomes between everolimuseluting stents (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in contemporary practice. Methods and Results-We prospectively enrolled 6166 consecutive patients who received EES (3081 patients) and SES (3085 patients) between April 2008 and June 2010, using data from the Interventional Cardiology Research In-Cooperation Society-Drug-Eluting Stents Registry. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularization (TVR). At 2 years of follow-up, the 2 study groups did not differ significantly in crude risk of the primary end point (12.1% for EES versus 12.4% for SES; HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84-1.12, P=0.66). After adjustment for differences in baseline risk factors, the adjusted risk for the primary end point remained similar for the 2 stent types (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82-1.12, P=0.60). There were also no differences between the stent groups in the adjusted risks of the individual component of death (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.67-1.30, P=0.68), MI (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.18, P=0.74), and TVR (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.49, P=0.51). The adjusted risk of stent thrombosis also was similar (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.84, P=0.75). Conclusions-In contemporary practice of percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, the unrestricted use of EES and SES showed similar rates of safety and efficacy outcomes with regard to death, MI, sent thrombosis, and TVR. Future longer-term follow-up is needed to better define the relative benefits of these drug-eluting stents.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)365-371
Number of pages7
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2012 Jun 1



  • Angioplasty
  • Coronary disease
  • Stents

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Park, D. W., Kim, Y. H., Song, H. G., Ahn, J. M., Kim, W. J., Lee, J. Y., Kang, S. J., Lee, S. W., Lee, C. W., Park, S. W., Yun, S. C., Her, S. H., Hur, S. H., Park, J. S., Kim, M. K., Choi, Y. S., Kim, H. S., Cho, J. H., Lee, S. G., ... Park, S. J. (2012). Outcomes after unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: A multicenter, prospective cohort study. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 5(3), 365-371. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.966549