BACKGROUND: The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) reduce restenosis in small coronary artery lesions. However, it is not clear which of these stents is superior in terms of clinical outcomes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively examined 197 patients with 245 de novo small coronary artery lesions (<or=<or=2.75 mm) that were treated with either the SES (156 lesions) or the PES (89 lesions). Six-month angiographic restenosis rates and the 9-month target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In terms of baseline clinical and angiographic parameters, the two groups well matched together. Six-month angiographic follow-up was performed on 170 patients (86.3%), comprising 135 SES lesions (86.5%) and 76 PES lesions (85.4%). At 6-month angiographic follow-up, the late lumen loss was less in the SES group than in the PES group (0.29 +/- 0.42 vs. 0.69 +/- 0.63 mm, P < 0.01). Therefore, the SES group showed a lower rate of angiographic restenosis than the PES group (6.7% vs. 27.7%, P < 0.01). At 9 months there were no deaths or myocardial infarctions in either group. The 9-month TLR rate was lower in the SES group than in the PES group (3.3% vs. 14.4%, P < 0.01). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from TLR at 9 months was 96.7% for the SES patients and 86.5% for the PES patients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The SES treatment may be superior to the PES treatment in terms of long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with small coronary artery lesions.
BACKGROUND: The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) reduce restenosis in small coronary artery lesions. However, it is not clear which of these stents is superior in terms of clinical outcomes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively examined 197 patients with 245 de novo small coronary artery lesions (<or=<or=2.75 mm) that were treated with either the SES (156 lesions) or the PES (89 lesions). Six-month angiographic restenosis rates and the 9-month target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In terms of baseline clinical and angiographic parameters, the two groups well matched together. Six-month angiographic follow-up was performed on 170 patients (86.3%), comprising 135 SES lesions (86.5%) and 76 PES lesions (85.4%). At 6-month angiographic follow-up, the late lumen loss was less in the SES group than in the PES group (0.29 +/- 0.42 vs. 0.69 +/- 0.63 mm, P < 0.01). Therefore, the SES group showed a lower rate of angiographic restenosis than the PES group (6.7% vs. 27.7%, P < 0.01). At 9 months there were no deaths or myocardial infarctions in either group. The 9-month TLR rate was lower in the SES group than in the PES group (3.3% vs. 14.4%, P < 0.01). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from TLR at 9 months was 96.7% for the SESpatients and 86.5% for the PESpatients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The SES treatment may be superior to the PES treatment in terms of long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with small coronary artery lesions.