In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

We use cookies to optimise the design of this website and make continuous improvement. By continuing your visit, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn more

Even interventional cardiologists now recognize the importance of secondary prevention!

Comment by Paul Dendale, EACPR Cardiac Rehabilitation Section

Unrestricted randomised use of two new generation drug-eluting coronary stents: 2-year patient-related versus stent-related outcomes from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial

Prof Sigmund Silber MD, Prof Stephan Windecker MD, Pascal Vranckx MD, Prof Patrick W Serruys MD, on behalf of the RESOLUTE All Comers investigators


In this trial, more than 1100 patients with angina pectoris were randomized to one of two different drug eluting stents (Resolute with zotarolimus versus Xience V with everolimus) and followed up for two years. The good news was a very low rate of very late stent thrombosis (0,3%). The number of patients needing an intervention for a stent problem (restenosis, stent thrombosis) was approximately 11% with no difference in the two groups. When looking at patient outcome, up to 20% of patients in both groups (no difference between groups) had a recurrent cardiac problem.

The authors conclude : "The differences between stent-related and patient-related  events can be regarded as more indicative of the patients’  underlying global disease, rather than related to the specific localised coronary obstruction treated with the study stents." The doubling of the number of patient problems as compared to stent problems shows that the extent of the underlying disease is at least as important for prognosis than the lesion in itself. According to Silber et al “optimisation of secondary prevention and overall medical management during long-term follow-up seems to be more important thanc the initial choice between advanced, new generation drug-eluting stents”.

Hopefully, it will now be less difficult to convince the interventional cardiologists to refer their patients to cardiac rehabilitation