Aims: The aim of this study was to report whether the superiority of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) vs. the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) at one-year follow-up in the Taxus Element versus Xience Prime in a Diabetic Population (TUXEDO)-India trial was sustained at longer-term follow-up.
Methods and results: One thousand eight hundred and thirty (1,830) patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease were randomised to EES vs. PES. Follow-up data up to two years were available in 1,701 (92.9%) patients. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Treatment with EES had a lower two-year rate of TVF (4.3% vs. 6.6%, p=0.03). Of the secondary endpoints, EES significantly reduced any MI (1.6% vs. 3.5%, p=0.01), TV-MI (0.7% vs. 3.1%, p=0.0001), ST (0.4% vs. 2.2%, p=0.001), cardiac death or target vessel MI (2.9% vs. 4.8%, p=0.04) and TLR (1.9% vs. 3.7%, p=0.02), compared with PES. Between one year and two years, no significant differences in the clinical outcomes were observed (pinteraction >0.05).
Conclusions: In this adequately powered trial, the benefits of EES vs. PES in a diabetic population seen at one year were maintained at two years.