XIENCE™ for CTO Lesions

XIENCE™ Stent, the world’s leading DES, is considered by industry experts to be the gold standard.⁸ It offers unmatched consistency and optimal acute outcomes in all types of patients and lesions, including complex cases.^9,10

XIENCE™ Complex Patient Data: Consistently Low Stent Thrombosis Rates^11-16

Results from a number of multicenter, randomized trials show that XIENCE™ Stent has low stent thrombosis (ST) rates, from 30 days to 5 years.

* DAPT duration of 1 month

XIENCE™ in All-Comer Complex Patient Population

In a meta-analysis of all-comer complex patients, XIENCE™ Stent was shown to save lives compared to bare metal stents (BMS).¹⁷

2-Year Clinical Outcomes: XIENCE™ Stent vs Bare Metal Stents¹⁷

^†Adjusted for clinical syndrome (ie, acute coronary syndrome vs stable syndrome), history of diabetes mellitus, female sex, use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and up to 1 year vs longer duration of DAPT.

“The benefit of [XIENCE™ Stents] occurred immediately after implantation and . . . also at long-term follow-up beyond 2 years.”
—Manel Sabaté, MD, on the EXAMINATION trial's lower event rates for XIENCE™ Stent versus bare metal stents in STEMI patients¹⁵

Detailed Data on Complex Patients, Complex Lesions

XIENCE™ Stent is increasingly used—and evaluated via clinical trials—in complex patients and when treating complex lesions. View more data on complex patients: short DAPT and AMI.

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. Tests performed and data on file at Abbott. Bench test data shows that XIENCE™ Sierra performed better in crossability and was not statistically different in trackability and pushability compared to Resolute Onyx^‡ and SYNERGY^‡ stents. Bench test results may not necessarily be indicative of clinical performance. Testing performed on 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). Catheter performance crossability test measures average force to cross a challenging lesion model.
3. Instructions for Use – XIENCE Sierra™ – increased maximum expansion compared to XIENCE Alpine™ Stent.
4. Shaw JE, et al. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;87:4-14.
5. Fefer P, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(11):991-997.
6. Capodanno D, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:1468–1483.
7. Armstrong E, et al. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(3):581–589.
8. Data on file at Abbott – XIENCE data includes 120 clinical trials, 10+ years of data, 125,000 patients studied, 15,000,000 implants as of Q1 2020 and is the most implanted DES worldwide.
9. Saito S, et al. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(11):e1006-e1013. Saito S, et al. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2021-2031. Natsuaki M, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:181-190. Stone G, et al. TCT 2017 – ABSORB IV. Note: 99% is the lowest device success rate.
10. Serruys P, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:136-146. Zanchin C. et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(17):1665-1675. Note: 0.3% is the highest definite stent thrombosis rate.
11. Stone G, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1820-1830.
12. Teeuwen K, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:133-143.
13. Lam MK, et al. Am Heart J. 2015;169:69-77.
14. Kaul U, et al. EuroIntervention. 2017;13:1194-1201.
15. Sabaté M, et al. Lancet. 2016;387;357-366.
16. Watanabe H, et al. JAMA. 2019;321(24):2414-2427.
17. Valgimigli M, et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g6427.