BACKGROUND: Endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) capture stent is designed to promote rapid endothelization and healing and is potentially useful in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We studied the intermediate-term efficacy and safety of EPC stent and compared that with sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent (CURA) and bare metal stent (BMS) in AMI patients. METHODOLOGY: Patients presenting with AMI who underwent primary PCI with the respective stents between January 2004 and June 2006 were enrolled in the single-center clinical registry. The study end-points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients (EPC = 95, CURA = 53, BMS 218) were enrolled. Baseline demographics including age, gender, diabetes, renal impairment, predischarge left ventricular ejection fraction, and creatinine kinase level were comparable among the groups. Procedural success rate was 99.5%. Post-procedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow was achieved in EPC 91.6%, CURA 96.2%, and BMS 88.5% (P = 0.209). At 2 years, the MACE rate was EPC 13.7%, CURA 15.1%, and BMS 19.7% (P = 0.383). Target vessel revascularizations (TVR) were EPC 4.2%, CURA 9.4%, and BMS 6.0% (P = 0.439). Nonfatal myocardial infarctions were EPC 1.1%, CURA 3.8%, and BMS 4.1% (P = 0.364). One patient in the EPC group had acute stent thrombosis. There was no late stent thrombosis in the EPC group. CONCLUSION: EPC stent appeared to be safe and had comparable clinical efficacy with a BMS when used in the AMI setting. At 2-year follow-up, the EPC group showed favorable, single-digit TVR rate and stent thrombosis remained a low-event occurrence.
BACKGROUND: Endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) capture stent is designed to promote rapid endothelization and healing and is potentially useful in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We studied the intermediate-term efficacy and safety of EPC stent and compared that with sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent (CURA) and bare metal stent (BMS) in AMI patients. METHODOLOGY:Patients presenting with AMI who underwent primary PCI with the respective stents between January 2004 and June 2006 were enrolled in the single-center clinical registry. The study end-points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients (EPC = 95, CURA = 53, BMS 218) were enrolled. Baseline demographics including age, gender, diabetes, renal impairment, predischarge left ventricular ejection fraction, and creatinine kinase level were comparable among the groups. Procedural success rate was 99.5%. Post-procedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow was achieved in EPC 91.6%, CURA 96.2%, and BMS 88.5% (P = 0.209). At 2 years, the MACE rate was EPC 13.7%, CURA 15.1%, and BMS 19.7% (P = 0.383). Target vessel revascularizations (TVR) were EPC 4.2%, CURA 9.4%, and BMS 6.0% (P = 0.439). Nonfatal myocardial infarctions were EPC 1.1%, CURA 3.8%, and BMS 4.1% (P = 0.364). One patient in the EPC group had acute stent thrombosis. There was no late stent thrombosis in the EPC group. CONCLUSION: EPC stent appeared to be safe and had comparable clinical efficacy with a BMS when used in the AMI setting. At 2-year follow-up, the EPC group showed favorable, single-digit TVR rate and stent thrombosis remained a low-event occurrence.