Why the study?
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation improve immediate and 6-month outcomes compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis?
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation improve immediate and 6-month outcomes compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis?
Both sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents demonstrated excellent in-hospital and 6-month outcomes for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis with no significant differences between the two.
Comparable 6-month outcomes with SES or PES in unprotected LMCA stenosis; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
We performed this study in order to compare the immediate and mid-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in lesions of the unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA). We assessed 54 patients from 5 centers who had undergone unprotected LMCA stenting (35 SES and 19 PES). The procedural success rates were 100 and 95%, respectively, in the SES and PES patients (p = 0.19). At the 6-month clinical follow-up, the event-free probability was 100% in the SES group, and 88% in the PES group (p = 0.07). At the 6-month angiographic follow-up (n = 24), the SES group exhibited a slightly lower late loss than did the PES group (0.24 +/- 0.44 vs. 0.65 +/- 0.60 mm, p = 0.09), and the restenosis rates were 8 and 9% (p = 0.94) in the SES and PES patients, respectively. In conclusion, both groups exhibited excellent in-hospital and 6-month outcomes with no significant differences between them.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: