Comparison of Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion Using Everolimus- Versus Sirolimus- Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents (from the Korean National Registry of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention)

For the treatment of chronic total occlusion (CTO), the efficacy and safety of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) remain less well defined. Also, there are limited data for the predictors of outcome after CTO intervention. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of the EES with the first-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) in CTO intervention and to investigate the predictors of clinical outcome. The Korean National Registry of CTO Intervention is a retrospective cohort of 26 centers from the past 5 years. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Of the 1,754 all-comer patients, 1,509 patients (EES 311, sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] 642, paclitaxel-eluting stent 556) were finally analyzed after excluding 245 patients (mixed DESs in 46 and follow-up loss in 199). In the inverse probability weighting–adjusted population, the 1-year MACE rate of the EES was comparable with that of the SES (5.8% vs 3.4%, p = 0.796) and the paclitaxel-eluting stent (5.8% vs 6.9%, p = 0.740). Each component of MACE was also comparable among the 3 stents. Importantly, the independent predictors of MACE were diabetes mellitus, previous congestive heart failure, and left circumflex CTO. In conclusion, for the first time in the largest CTO cohort, the EES showed good 1-year clinical outcomes that were comparable with the SES. Independent predictors of MACE after CTO intervention were clinical factors (diabetes and congestive heart failure) and lesion location.