Key result
Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with a significantly higher 7-year cumulative incidence of very late stent thrombosis compared to bare-metal stents (1.43% vs 0.68%, P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Do first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents increase the risk of very late stent thrombosis and late target-lesion revascularization compared to bare-metal stents in patients undergoing first percutaneous coronary intervention?
Cohort (n=13,058)
Do first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents increase the risk of very late stent thrombosis and late target-lesion revascularization compared to bare-metal stents in patients undergoing first percutaneous coronary intervention?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.43% vs 0.68%
p-value: p=<0.0001
First-generation sirolimus-eluting stents are associated with a higher risk of very late stent thrombosis and late target-lesion revascularization compared to bare-metal stents over 7 years of follow-up.
May warrant caution with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents; leaves open randomized confirmation of excess very late thrombosis risk.
BACKGROUND: Late adverse events such as very late stent thrombosis (VLST) or late target-lesion revascularization (TLR) after first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) implantation have not been yet fully characterized at long term in comparison with those after bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 13 058 consecutive patients undergoing first percutaneous coronary intervention in the Coronary REvascularization Demonstrating Outcome study-Kyoto registry Cohort-2, 5078 patients were treated with SES only, and 5392 patients were treated with BMS only. During 7-year follow-up, VLST and late TLR beyond 1 year after SES implantation occurred constantly and without attenuation at 0.24% per year and at 2.0% per year, respectively. Cumulative 7-year incidence of VLST was significantly higher in the SES group than that in the BMS group (1.43% versus 0.68%, P<0.0001). However, there was no excess of all-cause death beyond 1 year in the SES group as compared with that in the BMS group (20.8% versus 19.6%, P=0.91). Cumulative incidences of late TLR (both overall and clinically driven) were also significantly higher in the SES group than in the BMS group (12.0% versus 4.1%, P<0.0001 and 8.5% versus 2.6%, P<0.0001, respectively), leading to late catch-up of the SES group to the BMS group regarding TLR through the entire 7-year follow-up (18.8% versus 25.2%, and 10.6% versus 10.2%, respectively). Clinical presentation as acute coronary syndrome was more common at the time of late SES TLR compared with early SES TLR (21.2% and 10.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Late catch-up phenomenon regarding stent thrombosis and TLR was significantly more pronounced with SES than that with BMS. This limitation should remain the target for improvements of DES technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Natsuaki et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing first percutaneous coronary intervention (n=13,058). Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) vs. Bare-metal stent (BMS) was evaluated on Cumulative 7-year incidence of very late stent thrombosis (VLST) (p=<0.0001). Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with a significantly higher 7-year cumulative incidence of very late stent thrombosis compared to bare-metal stents (1.43% vs 0.68%, P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: