OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term clinical and angiographic profile of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention for left main (LM) coronary disease. BACKGROUND: The long-term clinical and angiographic impact of SES as opposed to PES implantation in this subset of patients is unknown. METHODS: From April 2002 to March 2004, 110 patients underwent percutaneous intervention for LM stenosis at our institution; 55 patients were treated with SES and 55 with PES. The two groups were well balanced for all baseline characteristics. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 660 days (range 428 to 885), the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was similar (25% in the SES group vs. 29%, in the PES group; hazard ratio 0.88 [95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.82]; p = 0.74), reflecting similarities in both the composite death/myocardial infarction (16% in the SES group and 18% in the PES group) and target vessel revascularization (9% in the SES group and 11% in the PES group). Angiographic in-stent late loss (mm), evaluated in 73% of the SES group and in 77% of the PES group, was 0.32 +/- 74 in the main and 0.36 +/- 0.59 in the side branch in the SES group vs. 0.46 +/- 0.57 (p = 0.36) and 0.52 +/- 0.42 (p = 0.41) in the PES group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous LM intervention, PES may perform closely to SES both in terms of angiographic and long-term clinical outcome.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term clinical and angiographic profile of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention for left main (LM) coronary disease. BACKGROUND: The long-term clinical and angiographic impact of SES as opposed to PES implantation in this subset of patients is unknown. METHODS: From April 2002 to March 2004, 110 patients underwent percutaneous intervention for LM stenosis at our institution; 55 patients were treated with SES and 55 with PES. The two groups were well balanced for all baseline characteristics. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 660 days (range 428 to 885), the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was similar (25% in the SES group vs. 29%, in the PES group; hazard ratio 0.88 [95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.82]; p = 0.74), reflecting similarities in both the composite death/myocardial infarction (16% in the SES group and 18% in the PES group) and target vessel revascularization (9% in the SES group and 11% in the PES group). Angiographic in-stent late loss (mm), evaluated in 73% of the SES group and in 77% of the PES group, was 0.32 +/- 74 in the main and 0.36 +/- 0.59 in the side branch in the SES group vs. 0.46 +/- 0.57 (p = 0.36) and 0.52 +/- 0.42 (p = 0.41) in the PES group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous LM intervention, PES may perform closely to SES both in terms of angiographic and long-term clinical outcome.
Authors: Sanjay B Pandya; Young-Hak Kim; Sheridan N Meyers; Charles J Davidson; James D Flaherty; Duk-Woo Park; Anuj Mediratta; Karen Pieper; Eric Reyes; Robert O Bonow; Seung-Jung Park; Nirat Beohar Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Calvin C Leung; Timothy C Ball; Mandeep S Sidhu; James T DeVries; John E Jayne; John F Robb; Aaron V Kaplan; Jeremiah R Brown; David J Malenka; Craig A Thompson Journal: Cardiol Res Date: 2012-05-20