Clinical research

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00330

Dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting COMBO stents versus sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stents in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the three-year outcomes of the SORT OUT X randomised clinical trial

Lars Jakobsen1, MD, PhD; Evald H Christiansen1, MD, PhD; Phillip Freeman2, MD; Johnny Kahlert3, PhD; Karsten Veien4, MD; Michael Maeng1, MD, PhD; Bent Raungaard2, MD, PhD; Julia Ellert4, MD, PhD; Anton B. Villadsen2, MD; Steen D. Kristensen1, MD, DMSc; Martin K Christensen4, MD; Christian J. Terkelsen1, MD, DMSc; Jens Aaroe4, MD; Troels Thim1, MD, PhD; Jens Flensted Lassen4, MD, PhD; Mikkel Hougaard4, MD, PhD; Ashkan Eftekhari1, MD, PhD; Rebekka V. Jensen1, MD, PhD; Nicolaj B. Støttrup1, MD, PhD; Jeppe G. Rasmussen2, MD, PhD; Anders Junker4, MD, PhD; Svend E. Jensen2, MD, PhD; Henrik S. Hansen4, MD, DMSc; Lisette O. Jensen4, MD, DMSc

Abstract

Background: Target lesion failure (TLF) remains an issue with contemporary drug-eluting stents. The dual-therapy sirolimus-eluting and CD34 antibody-coated COMBO stent (DTS) was designed to improve early healing.

Aims: We aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes of the DTS and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in all-comer patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods: The SORT OUT X trial is a prospective multicentre randomised clinical trial with a registry-based follow-up comparing DTS and SES. The primary endpoint, TLF, is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation (TLR).

Results: A total of 3,146 patients were randomised to treatment with the DTS (1,578 patients) or the SES (1,568 patients). At 3 years, an intention-to-treat analysis showed that 155 patients (9.8%) who were assigned the DTS and 118 patients (7.5%) who were assigned the SES met the primary endpoint (incidence rate ratio for TLF=1.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.70; p=0.02). This difference was caused by a significantly higher TLF rate in the DTS group compared to the SES group within the first year, which was mainly explained by a...

Sign in to read
the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Volume 19 Number 8
Oct 23, 2023
Volume 19 Number 8
View full issue


Key metrics

On the same subject
Trending articles
338.63

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00904 Apr 1, 2022
Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention
Angiolillo D et al
free
295.45

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00898 Sep 20, 2022
Intravascular ultrasound guidance for lower extremity arterial and venous interventions
Secemsky E et al
free
226.03

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00426 Dec 3, 2021
Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease
Lindahl B et al
free
209.5

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01034 Jun 3, 2022
Management of in-stent restenosis
Alfonso F et al
free
168.4

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00690 May 15, 2022
Crush techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions
Moroni F et al
free
149.43

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00776 Apr 3, 2023
Computed tomographic angiography in coronary artery disease
Serruys PW et al
free
103.48

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00018 Dec 4, 2023
Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations
Lunardi M et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 6.2
2022 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2023)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved