Key result
Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation did not significantly improve 5-year survival (94.3% vs 92.8%, p=0.57) or reduce re-intervention compared to bare metal stents in patients with STEMI.
Why the study?
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation improve clinical outcomes compared to bare metal stent implantation in patients with STEMI?
RCT (n=310)
randomly assigned
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation improve clinical outcomes compared to bare metal stent implantation in patients with STEMI?
At 5-year follow-up in STEMI patients, sirolimus-eluting stents did not significantly reduce re-intervention or major adverse cardiac events compared to bare metal stents, but showed a trend toward more very late stent thrombosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Sirolimus-eluting stents confer no long-term advantage over bare metal stents in STEMI; challenges routine DES preference and supports BMS reevaluation in this setting.
AIMS: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus bare metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at long-term follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: After five years, 310 STEMI patients randomly assigned to implantation of either SES or BMS, were compared. Survival rates were comparable between groups (SES 94.3% vs. BMS 92.8%, p=0.57), as were the rates of reinfarction (10.6% vs. 13.7%, p=0.40), freedom of death/re-MI (84.4% vs. 79.8%, p=0.29) and target vessel failure (14.9% vs. 21.7%, p=0.11). Likewise, rates of overall stent thrombosis (ST) (5.4% vs. 2.7%, p=0.28) and very late ST (4.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.07) did not significantly differ between the SES- and BMS-group. In 184 patients with IVUS data, definite and definite/probable VLST was more common in those with late stent malapposition versus those without late stent malapposition (4.3% and 6.6% vs. no events [p=0.018 and p=0.004], respectively). The cumulative incidences of target vessel and target lesion revascularisation (TVR and TLR) were not significantly lower in the SES-group (11.2% vs. 17.9%, p=0.09 and 7.2% vs. 12.9%, p=0.08), as was the rate of clinically driven TLR (6.6% vs. 9.5%, p=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: SES implantation was neither associated with increased rates of major adverse cardiac events, nor with a reduction in re-intervention, compared to implantation of a BMS in patients with STEMI after five years. However, a trend of more very late stent thrombosis was observed after SES implantation (ISRCTN62825862).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boden et al. (2012) conducted an RCT in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=310). Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) vs. Bare metal stent (BMS) was evaluated on Survival (p=0.57). Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation did not significantly improve 5-year survival (94.3% vs 92.8%, p=0.57) or reduce re-intervention compared to bare metal stents in patients with STEMI.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: