Key result
Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for chronic total occlusions significantly reduced the 6-month rate of major adverse cardiac events compared to bare metal stents (16.4% vs 35.1%, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to bare metal stents in patients undergoing revascularization for chronic total occlusions?
Population
381 patients who underwent revascularization in chronic total occlusion lesions
Comparison
Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation vs Bare metal stents implantation
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with lower MACE in CTOs; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=381)
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to bare metal stents in patients undergoing revascularization for chronic total occlusions?
Hazard Ratio: 2.97 (95% CI 1.8–4.89)
Absolute Event Rate: 16.4% vs 35.1%
p-value: p=<0.001
Sirolimus-eluting stents significantly reduce the incidence of MACE, restenosis, and the need for revascularization at 6 months compared to bare metal stents in patients with chronic total occlusions.
Ge et al. (2005) conducted a cohort in Chronic total occlusion (CTO) (n=381). Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation vs. Bare metal stents (BMS) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (HR 2.97, 95% CI 1.80-4.89, p=<0.001). Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for chronic total occlusions significantly reduced the 6-month rate of major adverse cardiac events compared to bare metal stents (16.4% vs 35.1%, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: