PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 13, 2006New England Journal of Medicine437 citationsOpen Access

Paclitaxel-Eluting versus Uncoated Stents in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

View Full Paper
GLGerrit J. LaarmanMSMaarten J. SuttorpMDMaurits T. Dirksen

Key Points

  • To assess whether paclitaxel-eluting stents reduce adverse cardiac events compared to uncoated stents in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
  • Randomized clinical trial (ISRCTN65027270) enrolling 619 patients presenting with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Structured PICO

Does a paclitaxel-eluting stent reduce the composite of death from cardiac causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization in patients undergoing primary PCI for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation compared to an uncoated stent?

P
Population
619 patients presenting with an acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention
I
Intervention
Paclitaxel-eluting stent
C
Comparator
Uncoated stent
O
Outcome
Composite of death from cardiac causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization at 1 yearcomposite

The use of paclitaxel-eluting stents in STEMI patients showed a non-significant trend towards reducing serious adverse cardiac events at 1 year compared to uncoated stents.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting coronary-artery stents have been shown to decrease restenosis and therefore the likelihood that additional procedures will be required after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We evaluated the use of a drug-eluting stent in patients undergoing PCI for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 619 patients presenting with an acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation to receive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an uncoated stent. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics in both groups were well matched. There was a trend toward a lower rate of serious adverse events in the paclitaxel-stent group than in the uncoated-stent group (8.8% vs. 12.8%; adjusted relative risk, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 1.07; P=0.09). A nonsignificant trend was also detected in favor of the paclitaxel-stent group, as compared with the uncoated-stent group, in the rate of death from cardiac causes or recurrent myocardial infarction (5.5% vs. 7.2%, P=0.40) and in the rate of target-lesion revascularization (5.3% vs. 7.8%, P=0.23). The incidence of stent thrombosis during 1 year of follow-up was the same in both groups (1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of paclitaxel-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation reduced the incidence of serious adverse cardiac events at 1 year by 4.0 percentage points, as compared with uncoated stents, the difference was not statistically significant. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN65027270 controlled-trials.com.).

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Laarman et al. (2006) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a70d73326a7f98052dd4c97https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa062598
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper