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: Comparison of six-year clinical outcome of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents to bare-metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: an analysis of the RESEARCH (rapamycin-eluting stent evaluated at Rotterdam cardiology hospital) and T-SEARCH (taxus stent evaluated at Rotterdam cardiology hospital) registries.
    Author: Simsek C, Magro M, Boersma E, Onuma Y, Nauta S, Daemen J, Gaspersz M, van Geuns RJ, van der Giessen W, van Domburg R, Serruys P.
    Journal: J Invasive Cardiol; 2011 Aug; 23(8):336-41. PubMed ID: 21828397.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Short- and long-term data showed that drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly decreased target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates compared to bare-metal stents (BMS). However, conflicting long-term data remain for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the 6-year clinical outcome of all patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for a de novo lesion with exclusive use of BMS, sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). METHODS: Three PPCI cohorts (BMS = 80; SES = 92; PES = 162) were systematically followed for the occurrence of MACE. RESULTS: Very late stent thrombosis was more common after the implantation of SES as compared to PES or BMS (7.6%, 0.6%, and 0.0%, respectively; p = 0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates indicate no statistically significant difference for mortality between the three stent types at 6 years (BMS = 25%; SES = 15%; PES = 21%; Log-rank p = 0.2). After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, mortality, mortality/myocardial infarction (MI), and MACE rates were significantly lower for SES compared to BMS, but not for PES (aHR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.17-0.98; aHR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21-0.96; aHR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.72, respectively). No differences were observed between the three stent types for TVR rates. CONCLUSION: Neither SES nor PES improved safety or efficacy as compared to BMS in a STEMI population at 6 years. After adjusting, the usage of SES resulted in a significant decrease in mortality, mortality/MI and MACE rates as compared to BMS, in contrast to the usage of PES. SES and PES have a similar effectiveness and safety profile, although very late stent thrombosis was more common with SES.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]