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: 5-year follow-up after primary percutaneous coronary intervention with a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a follow-up study of the PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation) trial.
    Author: Vink MA, Dirksen MT, Suttorp MJ, Tijssen JG, van Etten J, Patterson MS, Slagboom T, Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ.
    Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2011 Jan; 4(1):24-9. PubMed ID: 21251625.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of the PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation) trial. BACKGROUND: In primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) is still controversial. Several randomized controlled trials of DES, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), with short-term follow-up showed a reduction in target lesion revascularization (TLR), but no differences in rates of cardiac death or recurrent myocardial infarction. Moreover, the occurrence of (very) late stent thrombosis (ST) continues to be of major concern, and, therefore, long-term follow-up results are needed. METHODS: We randomly assigned 619 patients presenting with STEMI to a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) or the similar BMS. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or TLR. We performed clinical follow-up at 5 years. RESULTS: At 5 years, the occurrence of the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or TLR was comparable at 18.6% versus 21.8% in PES and BMS, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 1.18, p = 0.28). The incidence of definite or probable ST was 12 (4.2%) in the PES group and 10 (3.4%) in the BMS group (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.51 to 276, p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: In the present analysis of PES compared with BMS in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events was observed. In addition, no difference in the incidence of definite or probable ST was seen, although very late ST was almost exclusively seen after the use of PES. (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation [PASSION]; ISRCTN65027270).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]