A randomized, controlled, multi-center trial comparing the safety and efficacy of zotarolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo lesions in coronary arteries: Final results of the ZoMaxx II trial

William A. Gray, Alan C. Yeung, Donald E. Cutlip, Jeffrey J. Popma, Peter J. Fitzgerald, David O. Williams, Hubertus Heuer, Charles D. O'Shaughnessy, Paul A. Overlie, J. Tift Mann, Louis A. Cannon, James B. Hermiller, Timothy D. Henry, Robert Whitbourn, Thomas D. Stuckey, Mark G. Midei, Jessie Coe, Lewis B. Schwartz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled clinical trial was to compare the effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZoMaxx™) with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent (Taxus™ Express2™) in patients with angina pectoris and a single native coronary artery lesion between 10-28 mm in length and 2.5-3.75 mm in diameter. Methods: Patients were enrolled at 75 international institutions between June 2005 and November 2006. Results: 1099 (1672 originally planned) patients received 557 ZoMaxx and 542 Taxus stents: cohorts were well-matched for diabetes (27% vs. 27%), reference vessel diameter (2.73 ± 0.46 mm vs. 2.74 ± 0.45 mm) and lesion length (14.8 ± 6.7 mm vs. 14.3 ± 6.4 mm). Nine month clinical and angiographic follow-up was available in 1052/1099 (96%) and 649/836 (78%) patients, respectively. The safety profiles for the two stents (myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death and/or target vessel revascularization (TVR)) were similar (ZoMaxx 8.7% vs. Taxus 6.9%, p = NS). The primary endpoint of 9-month TVR occurred more frequently after treatment with ZoMaxx (6.8%) as compared with Taxus (4.2%), therefore the primary clinical endpoint was not met. However, the 9-month in-segment late lumen loss for ZoMaxx (0.29 ± 0.47 mm) and Taxus (0.22 ± 0.41 mm, p = NS) were similar, thus satisfying the primary angiographic endpoint. Secondary endpoints of the rates of in-segment and in-stent binary restenosis were also similar (5.9% vs. 5.8%, 7.8% vs. 7.9%, respectively). Conclusions: At 9 months, the ZoMaxx stent failed to achieve the primary endpoint of non-inferiority in TVR to the Taxus stent, but safety endpoints were equal between the two stent systems.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)96-101
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Volume157
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - May 17 2012

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The ZoMaxx II trial was a randomized, prospective, multi-center clinical trial conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practices (GCP), Declaration of Helsinki and Ethics Committee requirements. The protocol was approved by both the FDA and individual Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). The authors are solely responsible for the design and conduct of this study, all study analyses, the drafting and editing of the paper and its final contents. The ZoMaxx II trial was sponsored and funded by Abbott Laboratories.

Copyright:
Copyright 2013 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • Drug-eluting stents
  • Percutaneous coronary intervention
  • Restenosis
  • Zotarolimus

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A randomized, controlled, multi-center trial comparing the safety and efficacy of zotarolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo lesions in coronary arteries: Final results of the ZoMaxx II trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this