30
CARDIOVASCULAR
hamburger

Xience™ Stent Clinical Outcomes

Stent choice matters. And a wealth of clinical evidence supports the safety of the XIENCE™ Stent, which is why experts consider XIENCE™ Stent to be the gold standard among DES.1

In addition, reproducible procedural outcomes are a proven quality of XIENCE™ DES performance,2 delivering consistent patient safety with low complication rates3

When choosing XIENCE™ Stent, interventional cardiologists (ICs) can know that the optimal outcomes they achieved in the cath lab will persist far into the future—not only treating stenosed vessels but enabling patients to have a better quality of life.4

There’s a Whole World of Evidence to Support the XIENCE™ Stent

XIENCE™ Stent is the world's leading DES, with over 15 million implants.5

Cardiologists have chosen XIENCE™ Stent for more than 15 million implants, making XIENCE™ Stent the world's leading DES
Cardiologists have chosen XIENCE™ Stent for over 120 clinical trials
Cardiologists have chosen XIENCE™ Stent for over 125,000 patients
Cardiologists have chosen XIENCE™ Stent for over 10 years


Substantial clinical data continue to provide evidence that XIENCE™ DES can effectively treat a broad spectrum of patients.1 Given the best in class deliverability and the expanded treatment options of XIENCE Sierra™ Stent,7 it is an excellent choice for complex patients. 

Key XIENCE™ Stent Clinical Trials

XIENCE 28 & XIENCE 90 Data

XIENCE™ Stent—with either 1-month or 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)—reduced severe bleeding with no increase in ischemic events.8

Short DAPT: Reduced Severe Bleeding8

With DAPT halted at either 1 month and 3 months, XIENCE™ Stent showed less severe bleeding, at 6 months and 12 months, vs earlier XIENCE™ Stent data

XIENCE 28: BARC 3-5 BLEEDING

Between 1 and 6 months
With DAPT halted at either 1 month and 3 months, XIENCE™ Stent showed less severe bleeding, at 6 months and 12 months, vs earlier XIENCE™ Stent data

XIENCE 90: BARC 3-5 BLEEDING

Between 3 and 12 months

Note: PS stratified analysis for BARC 3-5 bleeding was not pre-specified.
Note: BARC 2-5 was a powered secondary endpoint.

Short DAPT: No Increase in Ischemic Events in High Bleeding Risk (HBR) Patients8

With short DAPT data from both 1 month and 3 months, XIENCE™ Stent showed less severe bleeding than earlier XIENCE™ Stent findings

XIENCE 28: 1-month DAPT in HBR Patients
XIENCE 28: All Deaths or MI

Between 1 and 6 months
With short DAPT data from both 1 month and 3 months, XIENCE™ Stent showed less severe bleeding than earlier XIENCE™ Stent findings

XIENCE 90: 3-month DAPT in HBR Patients
XIENCE 90: All Deaths or MI

Between 3 and 12 months

CARDIOBASE Registry: XIENCE™ Stent vs Synergy
XIENCE™ Stent outperforms Synergy with short-term safety outcomes in real-world patients.9

Short-Term Data with XIENCE™ Stent and Synergy


XIENCE™ Stent: Significantly Lower Acute Definite Stent Thrombosis vs Synergyǂ9

75% Less acute definite stent thrombosis with XIENCE™ Stent System compared to Synergyǂ

XIENCE™ Stent results in 75% less acute definite stent thrombosis vs Synergyǂ
Propensity-matched analysis from a single-center registry.


XIENCE™ Stent: Significantly Lower Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) at 1 Month vs Synergyǂ9

Suggests favorable economic benefits* for XIENCE Stent vs. Synergyǂ in clinical practice

*Driven by reduction in additional procedures and hospitalizations

Compared to Synergyǂ, XIENCE™ Stent results in significantly lower TLR, and therefore economic benefits for clinical practice
Target Lesion Revascularization

IDEAL-LM Data: Long-Term Complex Patient Data on XIENCE™ Stent vs Synergy

In the left main subset of patients, the IDEAL-LM findings also reveal that the XIENCE™ Stent outperforms Synergy at 2 years10


Left Main Patients: XIENCE™ Stent Shows Significantly Lower Long-Term Definite Stent Thrombosis vs Synergyǂ10

XIENCE Stent
0% Stent Thrombosis

Compared to Synergyǂ, XIENCE™ Stent patient safety data show significantly lower long-term definite stent thrombosis.
Definite Stent Thrombosis

RESOLUTE All-Comers (RAC) Randomized Trial: XIENCE™ Stent vs Resolute

Safety data from RAC real-world patients also reveal that XIENCE™ Stent outperforms Resolute.‡11


XIENCE™ Stent: Significantly Lower Early Definite Stent Thrombosis vs Resoluteǂ11

88% less definite stent thrombosis with XIENCE™ Stent compared to Resoluteǂ

Compared to Resoluteǂ, XIENCE™ Stent patient safety data show 88% less definite stent thrombosis at 1 month
Definite Stent Thrombosis


XIENCE™ Stent: Significantly Lower Late Definite Stent Thrombosis vs Resoluteǂ11

75% less definite stent thrombosis with XIENCE™ Stent compared to Resoluteǂ

Note: Primary endpoint for non-inferiority was met by Resoluteǂ compared with XIENCE™ Stent. The primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 12 months.

Compared to Resoluteǂ, XIENCE™ Stent patient safety data show 75% less definite stent thrombosis at 1 year
Definite Stent Thrombosis

References:

  1. Zanchin C, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(17):1665-1675. Serruys P, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:136-146. Shiomi H, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:637-647. Kufner S, et al. Circulation. 2019:139(3):325-333. Palmerini T, et al. Lancet. 2013;379:1393-1402. Bangalore S, et al. Circulation. 2012;125:2873-2891. Bangalore S, et al. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(6):378-390. Pilgrim T, et al. Lancet. 2014;384:2111-2122. Pilgrim T, et al. Lancet. 2018;392:737-746. Data on file at Abbott.
  2. Saito S, et al. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2021-2031. Saito S, et al. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(11):e1006-e1013. Natsuaki M, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:181-190. Stone G, et al. Lancet 2018;392:1530-1540.
  3. Zanchin C, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(17):1665-1675. Serruys P, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:136-146. Shiomi H, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:637-647. Kufner S, et al. Circulation. 2019:139(3):325-333.
  4. Baron SJ, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:3113-3122.
  5. Data on file at Abbott. 15 million implants is based on DES data through Q1 2020.
  6. Kufner S, et al. Circulation. 2019:139(3):325-333.
  7. Tests performed by and data on file at Abbott. XIENCE Sierra™ 3.0 x 18 mm, n=5; Synergy 3.0 x 20 mm, n=5; Resolute Onyx 3.0 x 18 mm, n=5. XIENCE Sierra™ IFU – increased maximum expansion compared to other XIENCE™ Stent products.
  8. Mehran R, et al. TCT Connect 2020, XIENCE 28/90.
  9. Zanchin C. et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(17):1665-1675.
  10. Van Geuns RJ, et al. TCT 2019, IDEAL-LM.
  11. Serruys P, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:136-146.

  • Manuals & Technical Resources
  • Cardiovascular Products
  • Customer Service

MAT-2101785 v1.0

DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AND EXIT CARDIOVASCULAR.ABBOTT?

CONTENTS OF THE SITE ARE NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF ABBOTT.

False
accessibility
© 2016 Abbott. All Rights Reserved. Please read the Legal Notice for further details.

Unless otherwise specified, all product and service names appearing in this Internet site are trademarks owned by or licensed to Abbott, its subsidiaries or affiliates. No use of any Abbott trademark, trade name, or trade dress in this site may be made without the prior written authorization of Abbott, except to identify the product or services of the company.

accessibility

DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AND EXIT CARDIOVASCULAR.ABBOTT?

CONTENTS OF THE SITE ARE NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF ABBOTT.