Key result
SES cuts 1-year binary restenosis ~56% vs. BMS in acute STEMI.
Why the study?
Stent restenosis occurs in up to 27% of patients undergoing primary angioplasty, and although drug-eluting stents drastically reduced restenosis in clinically stable patients, confirmation was needed on whether sirolimus-eluting stents safely reduce restenosis in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction.
Does a sirolimus-eluting stent reduce binary restenosis at 1-year angiographic follow-up compared with a bare-metal stent in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction?
RCT (n=320)
Randomized
Does a sirolimus-eluting stent reduce binary restenosis at 1-year angiographic follow-up compared with a bare-metal stent in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction?
In patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, sirolimus-eluting stents significantly reduced 1-year binary restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events compared to bare-metal stents.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support sirolimus-eluting stents in acute MI; leaves open applicability to contemporary cohorts.
OBJECTIVES: To confirm whether sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) safely reduce the incidence of restenosis in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). BACKGROUND: In the setting of primary angioplasty, stent restenosis occurs in up to 27% of patients. The introduction of drug-eluting stents has drastically reduced the incidence of restenosis in clinically stable patients. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial of 320 patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction assigned to receive SES or BMS. The primary end point was binary restenosis at 1-year angiographic follow-up. RESULTS: At 1 year, the incidence of binary restenosis was lower in the SES group than in the BMS group (9.3% vs. 21.3%, respectively; p = 0.032), as were the rates of target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 11.2%; p = 0.02), target vessel revascularization (5% vs. 13.1; p = 0.015), major adverse cardiac events (6.8% vs. 16.8%; p = 0.005), and target vessel failure (8.7% vs. 18.7%; p = 0.007). The incidence of angiographically documented stent thrombosis was 1.2% (n = 2) in the SES group and 0.6% (n = 1) in the BMS group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction, SES are superior to BMS, reducing the incidence of binary restenosis by 56%, target lesion revascularization by 61%, target vessel revascularization by 62%, adverse cardiac events by 59%, and target vessel failure by 53% at 1 year. (Sirolimus Eluting Stenting in Acute Myocardial Infarction; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00288210; NCT00288210).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Menichelli et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (n=320). Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) vs. Bare-metal stent (BMS) was evaluated on Binary restenosis at 1-year angiographic follow-up (p=0.032). Sirolimus-eluting stents were superior to bare-metal stents in reducing 1-year binary restenosis in patients with acute STEMI (9.3% vs. 21.3%; p = 0.032).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: