1 / 4

ZEST trial

ZEST trial. Objective: To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of ZES in comparison with SES and PES Study: Multicenter, single blind randomized trial. Population: Stable angina or ACS patients. De novo native coronary lesions. (no STEMI , no LM stenosis, LVEF ≥ 25 %)

kyle-jensen
Download Presentation

ZEST trial

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ZEST trial Objective: To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of ZES in comparison with SES and PES Study: Multicenter, single blind randomized trial. Population: Stable angina or ACS patients. De novo native coronary lesions. (no STEMI, no LM stenosis, LVEF ≥ 25%) Endpoint: MACE (death, MI, ischemia driven TVR) at 12 months.

  2. Enrolled n=2645 ZES n=883 SES n=878 PES n=884 ZEST trial

  3. ZEST trial Eventrate at 12 months % P<0.001 P=0.55 P=0.34 P<0.001 P=0.02 ZES vs SES: p fornoninferiority: 0.01 (noninferiority margin 5%) ZES vs SES: p forsuperiority: 0.17 ZES vs PES: p forsuperiority: 0.01

  4. ZEST trial Conclusion: The use of ZES resulted in similar rates of MACE compared with SES and in fewer rates of MACE compared with PES. Park et al. J Am CollCardiol 2010;56:1187-95

More Related