The combined patient-oriented outcome consisted of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation.
According to a commentary, the conclusion that everolimus-eluting stents (EES) reduce mortality compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) because of benefits that become apparent in the long term is tempting, but cannot be accepted so simply in view of the low statistical power of the study, the unclear mechanisms at play, and most of the events that might be expected to be directly or indirectly linked to mortality were significantly reduced by EES only during the first year (i.e. stent thrombosis and revascularisation) or were distributed in the opposite direction between 1 year and 5 years (i.e. myocardial infarction). It suggests that a prudent conclusion would be that the long-term results of this study found no signals of late attrition in the revascularisation benefit shown in the EES group at 1 year, and no accrued safety hazards compared with BMS, including reassuringly low rates of very late stent thrombosis and target vessel reinfarction, despite dual antiplatelet therapy being discontinued by most patients at 1 year.