OBJECTIVE: We present real world experience from a single center registry comparing the 6-month outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected high-risk individuals using either sirolimus-eluting (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). METHODS/ RESULTS: We compared clinical outcome at 6 months follow-up in two cohorts of 156 consecutive patients (total n = 312) who underwent SES (June 2002-February 2003) and PES (march 2003-July 2003) implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Baseline clinical characteristics were well matched. The 6-month target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates were 1.9% (SES) and 2.6% (PES) and MACE rates were similar in the two groups (SES 4.5% vs. PES 3.2%, P = NS). In the PES group, intervention for multivessel disease, bifurcation lesions and in small vessels was more common, and for in-stent restenosis less common, reflecting the impact of drug eluting stents on indications for PCI. The incidence of sub-acute stent thrombosis, related to inadequate antiplatelet therapy in 3 of the 6 cases, was 0.95% with no difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the safety and efficacy of SES and PES in unselected high risk patients undergoing PCI. Clinical outcomes of both stents are equivalent at 6 months with low rates of MACE and TVR. These data provide important complementary information to forthcoming randomized studies. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss., Inc.
OBJECTIVE: We present real world experience from a single center registry comparing the 6-month outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected high-risk individuals using either sirolimus-eluting (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). METHODS/ RESULTS: We compared clinical outcome at 6 months follow-up in two cohorts of 156 consecutive patients (total n = 312) who underwent SES (June 2002-February 2003) and PES (march 2003-July 2003) implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Baseline clinical characteristics were well matched. The 6-month target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates were 1.9% (SES) and 2.6% (PES) and MACE rates were similar in the two groups (SES 4.5% vs. PES 3.2%, P = NS). In the PES group, intervention for multivessel disease, bifurcation lesions and in small vessels was more common, and for in-stent restenosis less common, reflecting the impact of drug eluting stents on indications for PCI. The incidence of sub-acute stent thrombosis, related to inadequate antiplatelet therapy in 3 of the 6 cases, was 0.95% with no difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the safety and efficacy of SES and PES in unselected high risk patients undergoing PCI. Clinical outcomes of both stents are equivalent at 6 months with low rates of MACE and TVR. These data provide important complementary information to forthcoming randomized studies. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss., Inc.
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