OBJECTIVES: We investigated the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) when used without restriction in unselected patients. BACKGROUND: Both SES and PES have been separately shown to be efficacious when compared to bare stents. In unselected patients, no direct comparison between the two devices has been performed. METHODS: Paclitaxel-eluting stents have been used as the stent of choice for all percutaneous coronary interventions in the prospective Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registry. A total of 576 consecutive patients with de novo coronary artery disease exclusively treated with PES were compared with 508 patients treated with SES from the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. RESULTS: The PES patients were more frequently male, more frequently treated for acute myocardial infarction, had longer total stent lengths, and more frequently received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. At one year, the raw cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 13.9% in the PES group and 10.5% in the SES group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 1.88, p = 0.1). Correction for differences in the two groups resulted in an adjusted HR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.64, p = 0.4, using significant univariate variables) and an adjusted HR of 1.20 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.70, p = 0.3, using independent predictors). The one-year cumulative incidence of clinically driven target vessel revascularization was 5.4% versus 3.7%, respectively (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.43, p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The universal use of PES in an unrestricted setting is safe and is associated with a similar adjusted outcome compared to SES. The inferior trend in crude outcome seen in PES was due to its higher-risk population. A larger, randomized study enrolling an unselected population may assist in determining the relative superiority of either device.
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) when used without restriction in unselected patients. BACKGROUND: Both SES and PES have been separately shown to be efficacious when compared to bare stents. In unselected patients, no direct comparison between the two devices has been performed. METHODS:Paclitaxel-eluting stents have been used as the stent of choice for all percutaneous coronary interventions in the prospective Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registry. A total of 576 consecutive patients with de novo coronary artery disease exclusively treated with PES were compared with 508 patients treated with SES from the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. RESULTS: The PESpatients were more frequently male, more frequently treated for acute myocardial infarction, had longer total stent lengths, and more frequently received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. At one year, the raw cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 13.9% in the PES group and 10.5% in the SES group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 1.88, p = 0.1). Correction for differences in the two groups resulted in an adjusted HR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.64, p = 0.4, using significant univariate variables) and an adjusted HR of 1.20 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.70, p = 0.3, using independent predictors). The one-year cumulative incidence of clinically driven target vessel revascularization was 5.4% versus 3.7%, respectively (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.43, p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The universal use of PES in an unrestricted setting is safe and is associated with a similar adjusted outcome compared to SES. The inferior trend in crude outcome seen in PES was due to its higher-risk population. A larger, randomized study enrolling an unselected population may assist in determining the relative superiority of either device.
Authors: Gordon E Pate; May Lee; Karin Humphries; Eric Cohen; Robert Lowe; Rebecca S Fox; Robert Teskey; Christopher E Buller Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Nicolas W Shammas; Eric J Dippel; Gail A Shammas; Leslie Farland; Stephanie Brosius; Michael Jerin; Amber Avila; Lauren Gehbauer; Matthew Winter; Penny Stoakes; Jeannette Byrd; Peter Sharis; Jon Robken Journal: Int J Angiol Date: 2008
Authors: S H Hofma; A T L Ong; J Aoki; C A G van Mieghem; G A Rodriguez Granillo; M Valgimigli; E Regar; P P T de Jaegere; E P McFadden; G Sianos; W J van der Giessen; P J de Feyter; R T Van Domburg; P W Serruys Journal: Heart Date: 2005-05-09 Impact factor: 5.994