Key result
Paclitaxel-eluting stents show no benefit over bare-metal stents for 2-year major events.
Why the study?
Does a paclitaxel-eluting stent reduce the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularisation, or stent thrombosis compared to a bare-metal stent in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
RCT (n=619)
Does a paclitaxel-eluting stent reduce the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularisation, or stent thrombosis compared to a bare-metal stent in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Hazard Ratio: 0.7 (95% CI 0.45–1.09)
At two years follow-up, paclitaxel-eluting stents did not significantly improve composite clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stents in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
No clinical benefit of paclitaxel-eluting over bare-metal stents in STEMI primary PCI; challenges routine DES preference in this setting.
Dirksen et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=619). Paclitaxel-eluting stents vs. Bare-metal stents was evaluated on Composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularisation (TLR) or stent thrombosis at two years (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45-1.09). Paclitaxel-eluting stents did not significantly reduce the 2-year composite of cardiac death, recurrent MI, TLR, or stent thrombosis compared to bare-metal stents (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.09).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: