Table 2. Comparisons of BMS vs. DES trials in de novo lesions.
| Trial | No. of patients | Treatment | Follow-up | The most important results |
| RAVEL[6],[7] |
238 |
SES vs. BMS |
6 month angio 12 month clinical |
Binary restenosis: 0 vs. 26.6%; |
| TLR: 0 vs. 23.7%; P < 0.05 | ||||
| MACE: 5.8% vs. 28.8%; P < 0.001 | ||||
| 5 year clinical |
TLR: 10.3 % vs. 26%; P < 0.001 | |||
| MACE: 25.8% vs. 35.2%; P < 0.05 | ||||
| SIRIUS[8],[9] |
322 |
SES vs. BMS |
8 month angio 12 month clinical |
Binary restenosis: 3.2% vs. 35.4%; P < 0.001 |
| TLR: 4.9% vs. 20.2%; P < 0.001 | ||||
| MACE: 8.3% vs. 32.2%; P < 0.001 | ||||
| 5 year clinical |
TLR: 9.4% vs. 24.2%; P < 0.001 | |||
| MACE: 20.3% vs. 33.5%; P < 0.001 | ||||
| TAXUS IV[10],[11] |
1274 |
PES vs. BMS |
9 month angio and clinical |
Binary restenosis: 5.5% vs. 24.4%; P < 0.001 |
| TLR: 9.1% vs. 20.5%; P < 0.001 | ||||
| MACE: 8.5% vs. 15%; P < 0.001 | ||||
| 5 year clinical |
TLR: 9.1% vs. 20.5%; P < 0.001 | |||
| MACE: 24% vs. 32%; P < 0.001 | ||||
| SPIRIT I[12],[13] |
56 |
EES vs. BMS |
6 month angio and clinical |
Binary restenosis: 0 vs. 25.9%; P < 0.05 |
| TLR: 3.8% vs. 21.4% | ||||
| MACE: 7.7% vs. 21.4%; | ||||
| 5 year clinical |
TLR: 8.3% vs. 28%; | |||
| MACE: 16.7% vs. 28% | ||||
| ENDEAVOR II [14],[15] | 1197 | ZES vs. BMS | 12 month angio and clinical |
Binary restenosis: 9.4% vs. 33.5%; P < 0.001 |
| TLR: 4.6% vs. 11.8%; P < 0.001 | ||||
| MACE: 7.9% vs. 15.1%; P < 0.001 | ||||
| 5 year clinical | TLR: 7.5% vs. 16.3%; P < 0.001 | |||
| MACE: 15.4% vs. 24.4%; P < 0.001 |
BMS: bare-metal stent; DES: drug-eluting stent; EES: everolimus-eluting stent; MACE: major adverse cardiac events; SES: sirolimus-eluting stent; TLR: tagret lession revascularisation; PES: paclitaxel-eluting stent; ZES: zotarolimus-eluting stent.