Impact of three or more sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

✍ Scribed by William W. Chu; Pramod K. Kuchulakanti; Rebecca Torguson; Betty Wang; Leonardo C. Clavijo; William O. Suddath; Augusto D. Pichard; Lowell F. Satler; Kenneth M. Kent; Ron Waksman

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2006
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 75 KB
• Volume: 68
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1522-1946
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.20740

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent stenting with ≥3 sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) when compared with those treated with ≥3 paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES).

Background:

Drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation for single coronary lesions is proven to be effective and durable.

Methods:

A total of 126 patients who received DES were identified, of which 66 patients received ≥3 SES (SES group) and 60 patients received ≥3 PES (PES group).

Results:

The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were compatible between the two study groups. During the index hospitalization, all clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. There were no deaths or Q‐wave myocardial infarctions (MIs) in either group. At 30 days' and 6 months' follow‐up, all clinical outcomes, including death, Q‐wave MI, non–Q‐wave MI, target lesion revascularization, target vascular revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events, were compatible between both groups. There were 2 patients (3.0%) with subacute thrombosis in the SES group and 1 patient (1.7%) in the PES group, but there was no statistical significance. There was no late thrombosis from either group. In addition, patients in the SES group had similar event‐free survival rates as compared with those in the PES group (P = 0.56).

Conclusions:

Patients who require ≥3 DES implantations experienced increased adverse clinical events as compared with historical single stent implantation. However, there were no differences in safety and efficacy among the patients treated with SES as compared with those treated with PES. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss., Inc.