Key result
Second-generation drug-eluting stents showed no significant difference in periprocedural myocardial infarction compared to first-generation stents (4.0% vs 5.5%; P=0.29).
Why the study?
Do second-generation drug-eluting stents reduce the incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction compared to first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Cohort (n=800)
Do second-generation drug-eluting stents reduce the incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction compared to first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
There is no significant difference in the incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction between first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents when using the updated ARC definition.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational data show no periprocedural MI difference by stent generation; should not yet change practice and warrants randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: First- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) differ in coating materials, which may influence the incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI). OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of PMI between first- and second-generation DES, using the current Academic Research Consortium (ARC) definition of PMI. METHODS: We assessed 800 patients treated with first- (Taxus Liberté or Endeavor) or second-generation DES (Xience V or Resolute). Each DES group consisted of 200 consecutive patients, who were treated during the transition from first- to second-generation DES. Routine peri-interventional assessment of cardiac biomarkers was performed to compare the incidence of PMI between DES groups according to the updated definition by the ARC: 2x upper reference limit of creatine kinase (CK), confirmed by CK-MB elevation. RESULTS: In 800 patients, a total of 1,522 DES (363 Taxus; 385 Endeavor; 382 Xience V; 392 Resolute) were implanted to treat 1,232 lesions. Patient characteristics did not differ between groups. In patients receiving second-generation DES, more multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions were performed (P = 0.01). The overall incidence of PMI was 4.75%. Between first- and second-generation DES, there was no significant difference in PMI (5.5% vs. 4.0%; P = 0.29). In a multivariate analysis, only the total number of stents implanted (P < 0.001) and presentation with acute coronary syndrome (P = 0.02) were independent predictors of PMI. CONCLUSION: Using the revised ARC definition, we found no significant difference in PMI between first- and second-generation DES. Overall, PMI occurred in 4.75%, which is 58% lower than with use of the historical PMI definition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tandjung et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring stent implantation (n=800). Second-generation drug-eluting stents vs. First-generation drug-eluting stents was evaluated on Periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) by ARC definition (p=0.29). Second-generation drug-eluting stents showed no significant difference in periprocedural myocardial infarction compared to first-generation stents (4.0% vs 5.5%; P=0.29).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: