Key result
The incidence of documented subacute stent thrombosis within 30 days did not increase after emergent stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents for acute myocardial infarction (0.72% vs 0.71%).
Why the study?
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation increase the risk of subacute stent thrombosis compared to bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=558)
No
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation increase the risk of subacute stent thrombosis compared to bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
In a Japanese cohort, emergent implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents for acute myocardial infarction did not increase the risk of subacute stent thrombosis compared to bare-metal stents when using standard aspirin and ticlopidine therapy.
No excess subacute thrombosis seen with sirolimus-eluting stents in AMI; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The incidence of subacute stent thrombosis (SAT) within 30 days after stenting with a sirolimus-eluting stent (Cypher) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was retrospectively compared to that with bare-metal stents (BMS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 559 lesions in 558 consecutive AMI from April 2003 to February 2006, the incidence of documented SAT after Cypher implantation (2/276 lesions, 0.72%) was almost the same as for BMS (2 cases, 0.71%). Aspirin (81-100 mg/day) plus ticlopidine (200 mg/day) were administered continuously after admission in all 4 cases. CONCLUSION: Documented SAT did not increase after stenting with Cypher for AMI under aspirin plus ticlopidine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishikawa et al. (2006) conducted a cohort in Acute Myocardial Infarction (n=558). Sirolimus-eluting stent (Cypher) vs. Bare-metal stents (BMS) was evaluated on Subacute stent thrombosis (SAT) within 30 days. The incidence of documented subacute stent thrombosis within 30 days did not increase after emergent stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents for acute myocardial infarction (0.72% vs 0.71%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More on Dual antiplatelet therapyMore from Circulation Journal