These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Drug-eluting stent for the treatment of small coronary lesion: comparison between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stent.
    Author: Li JJ, Xu B, Yang YJ, Chen JL, Qiao SB, Ma WH, Qin XW, Yao M, Liu HB, Wu YJ, Yuan JQ, Chen J, You SJ, Dai J, Xia R, Gao RL.
    Journal: Chin Med J (Engl); 2007 Apr 05; 120(7):569-73. PubMed ID: 17442204.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Patients with small coronary lesions are at increased risk for repeat interventions after coronary angioplasty and stenting. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) has been demonstrated to improve the outcomes of these patients and is a focus of interest. Currently, two platforms of DES are available (sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)). However, it has less been known that DES, SES vs PES, is superior for the treatment of small coronary lesions. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 87 consecutive patients with 151 lesions underwent implantation of coronary SES (n = 68) and PES (n = 83). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed at the time of stent implantation and subsequently at 8 months post-stenting. Small vessel disease was defined as lesions in vessels with diameter 2.5 mm measured by QCA. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics and angiographic parameters were similar between the two groups. At clinical and angiographic follow-up, overall thrombosis rates were similar in both groups (0 vs 1.2%, P > 0.05). The TLR and in-segment restenosis were not significantly different (19.1% vs 25.3%; 10.3% vs 10.8%, P = 0.365 and P = 0.913 respectively) between the two groups. The in-stent restenosis rate, however, was significantly higher in the PES group (4.4% vs 21.7%; P = 0.002). Similarly, the late loss was significantly higher in the PES group ((0.140.38) mm vs (0.490.61) mm; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this small sample-size, non-randomized study, the data indicated that implantation of SES for the treatment of patients with small coronary lesion showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared with PES implantation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]