These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Long-term clinical and economic analysis of the Endeavor drug-eluting stent versus the Driver bare-metal stent: 4-year results from the ENDEAVOR II trial (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions).
    Author: Eisenstein EL, Wijns W, Fajadet J, Mauri L, Edwards R, Cowper PA, Kong DF, Anstrom KJ.
    Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2009 Dec; 2(12):1178-87. PubMed ID: 20129543.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate long-term clinical and economic outcomes for subjects receiving Endeavor drug-eluting versus Driver bare-metal stents (both Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, California). BACKGROUND: Early studies found that the drug-eluting stent (DES) was a clinically and economically attractive alternative to the bare-metal stent; however, associations between DES and very late stent thrombosis suggest that longer follow-up is required. METHODS: We used clinical, resource use and follow-up data from 1,197 subjects randomized to receive Endeavor (n = 598) versus Driver (n = 599) stents in ENDEAVOR II (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) study with Medicare cost weights and quality of life adjustments applied from secondary sources. We compared differences through 4-year follow-up (1,440 days). RESULTS: Patients in both treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. The use of Endeavor versus Driver reduced 4-year target vessel revascularization rates per 100 subjects (10.4 vs. 21.5; difference: -11.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -16.0 to -6.1; p < 0.001), with no difference in the rates per 100 subjects of death (5.0 vs. 5.2; difference: -0.2; 95% CI: -2.7 to 2.4; p = 0.90) or nonfatal myocardial infarction (3.2 vs. 4.4; difference: -1.2; 95% CI: -3.4 to 1.0; p = 0.29). After discounting at a 3% annual rate, there were no differences in quality-adjusted survival days (1,093 vs. 1,090; difference: 3; 95% CI: -13 to 19; p = 0.69) and total medical costs ($21,483 vs. $21,680; difference: -$198; 95% CI: -$1,608 to $1,207; p = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The use of Endeavor versus Driver was associated with a significant reduction in target vessel revascularization through 4-year follow-up with no difference in death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, quality-adjusted survival, or total medical costs. These results are comparable to those for other studies evaluating drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents. (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [ENDEAVOR II]; NCT00614848).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]