Key result
Paclitaxel-eluting stents showed no significant difference in 1-year MACE-free survival compared to sirolimus-eluting stents for acute myocardial infarction (85% vs 90.2%; p=0.16).
Why the study?
Do paclitaxel eluting stents improve clinical outcomes compared to sirolimus eluting stents in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=322)
No
Do paclitaxel eluting stents improve clinical outcomes compared to sirolimus eluting stents in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 85% vs 90.2%
p-value: p=0.16
In patients with acute STEMI, PES and SES demonstrated similar one-year MACE-free survival, though PES was associated with higher 30-day TVR driven by stent thrombosis in bifurcation lesions.
Similar 1-year MACE-free survival with PES or SES in acute MI supports equivalent use; leaves open early TVR risks in bifurcations.
Objective: To compare clinical outcome of paclitaxel eluting stents (PES) versus sirolimus eluting stents (SES) for the treatment of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. Design and patients: The first 136 consecutive patients treated exclusively with PES in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction in this single centre registry were prospectively clinically assessed at 30 days and one year. They were compared with 186 consecutive patients treated exclusively with SES in the preceding period. Setting: Academic tertiary referral centre. Results: At 30 days, the rate of all cause mortality and reinfarction was similar between groups (6.5% v 6.6% for SES and PES, respectively, p = 1.0). A significant difference in target vessel revascularisation (TVR) was seen in favour of SES (1.1% v 5.1% for PES, p = 0.04). This was driven by stent thrombosis (n = 4), especially in the bifurcation stenting (n = 2). At one year, no significant differences were seen between groups, with no late thrombosis and 1.5% in-stent restenosis (needing TVR) in PES versus no reinterventions in SES (p = 0.2). One year survival free of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 90.2% for SES and 85% for PES (p = 0.16). Conclusions: No significant differences were seen in MACE-free survival at one year between SES and PES for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with very low rates of reintervention for restenosis. Bifurcation stenting in acute myocardial infarction should, if possible, be avoided because of the increased risk of stent thrombosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohaned Egred (2005) conducted a cohort in Acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (n=322). Paclitaxel eluting stents (PES) vs. Sirolimus eluting stents (SES) was evaluated on One year survival free of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (p=0.16). Paclitaxel-eluting stents showed no significant difference in 1-year MACE-free survival compared to sirolimus-eluting stents for acute myocardial infarction (85% vs 90.2%; p=0.16).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: