To evaluate angiographic and clinical results of ZES compared with EES after recanalization of CTOs.Background:
ZES and EES showed similar clinical results in non-CTO lesions. Whether ZES and EES are also comparable in true CTO lesions (TIMI 0 flow, duration of occlusion of more than 3 months) with a higher risk of restenosis has not been addressed so far.Methods:
125 patients with successful CTO recanalization via antegrade or retrograde approach were included. EES were implanted in 68 patients and ZES in 57 patients. Dual antiplatelet therapy was prescribed for 12 months. Follow-up angiography was scheduled at 9 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. The primary angiographic outcome measure was in-stent late lumen loss. Primary clinical outcome measures were target lesion revascularization rate (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as a composite of cardiac death, TLR and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target vessel.Results:
Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Mean stent length was 72.8 ± 33.0mm with EES and 70.8 ± 31.5 mm with ZES (P = 0.72). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.50 ± 0.71 mm for EES compared with 0.59 ± 0.72 (P = 0.52) for ZES. There were similar rates for TLR (EES 10.3% versus ZES 10.5%,P = 0.97) and MACE (EES 10.3% versus ZES 12.3%). No definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred. Stent length but not type of stent was predictive for in-stent late loss and TLR.Conclusion:
ZES and EES showed similar angiographic and clinical outcomes for treatment of CTOs.