OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials, evaluating the long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: Despite short-term outcomes of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention indicate a benefit of SES in terms of reintervention, several concerns remain on the long-term safety and efficacy of SES. METHODS: A systematic literature search of electronic resources, through October 2011, was performed using specific search terms. Included trials were randomized studies comparing SES to BMS in STEMI patients, with a follow-up ≥3 years. RESULTS: Seven trials were included, with a total of 2,364 patients. At a median follow-up of 3 years, SES significantly reduced the risk of target-vessel revascularization when compared with BMS [odds ratio (OR), 0.44; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.34-0.57; p < 0.0001], without increasing the risk of mortality (OR 0.78; 95 % CI, 0.57-1.08; p = 0.14), reinfarction (OR 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.61-1.35, p = 0.64) and early to late stent thrombosis (OR 0.77; 95 % CI, 0.49-1.20; p = 0.25). However after the first year, SES did not further reduce target-vessel revascularization (OR 1.06; 95 % CI, 0.64-1.74; p = 0.83) and increased the risk of very late stent thrombosis (OR 2.81; 95 % CI, 1.33-5.92; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, SES compared to BMS use in STEMI patients reduces the risk of target-vessel revascularization, without increasing the risk of death and reinfarction. However, the strong SES efficacy is counterbalanced by a significant risk of very late stent thrombosis.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials, evaluating the long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: Despite short-term outcomes of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention indicate a benefit of SES in terms of reintervention, several concerns remain on the long-term safety and efficacy of SES. METHODS: A systematic literature search of electronic resources, through October 2011, was performed using specific search terms. Included trials were randomized studies comparing SES to BMS in STEMI patients, with a follow-up ≥3 years. RESULTS: Seven trials were included, with a total of 2,364 patients. At a median follow-up of 3 years, SES significantly reduced the risk of target-vessel revascularization when compared with BMS [odds ratio (OR), 0.44; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.34-0.57; p < 0.0001], without increasing the risk of mortality (OR 0.78; 95 % CI, 0.57-1.08; p = 0.14), reinfarction (OR 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.61-1.35, p = 0.64) and early to late stent thrombosis (OR 0.77; 95 % CI, 0.49-1.20; p = 0.25). However after the first year, SES did not further reduce target-vessel revascularization (OR 1.06; 95 % CI, 0.64-1.74; p = 0.83) and increased the risk of very late stent thrombosis (OR 2.81; 95 % CI, 1.33-5.92; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, SES compared to BMS use in STEMI patients reduces the risk of target-vessel revascularization, without increasing the risk of death and reinfarction. However, the strong SES efficacy is counterbalanced by a significant risk of very late stent thrombosis.
Authors: Kenichi Fujii; Stéphane G Carlier; Gary S Mintz; Yi-ming Yang; Issam Moussa; Giora Weisz; George Dangas; Roxana Mehran; Alexandra J Lansky; Edward M Kreps; Michael Collins; Gregg W Stone; Jeffrey W Moses; Martin B Leon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Bruce R Brodie; Thomas Stuckey; William Downey; Angela Humphrey; Marcy Nussbaum; Sherry Laurent; Barbara Bradshaw; Chris Metzger; James Hermiller; Fred Krainin; Stanley Juk; Barry Cheek; Peter Duffy; Charles A Simonton Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2008-12-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Peter Wenaweser; Joost Daemen; Marcel Zwahlen; Ron van Domburg; Peter Jüni; Sophia Vaina; Gerrit Hellige; Keiichi Tsuchida; Cyrill Morger; Eric Boersma; Neville Kukreja; Bernhard Meier; Patrick W Serruys; Stephan Windecker Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Adnan Kastrati; Julinda Mehilli; Jürgen Pache; Christoph Kaiser; Marco Valgimigli; Henning Kelbaek; Maurizio Menichelli; Manel Sabaté; Maarten J Suttorp; Dietrich Baumgart; Melchior Seyfarth; Matthias E Pfisterer; Albert Schömig Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-02-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Giuseppe De Luca; Maurits T Dirksen; Christian Spaulding; Henning Kelbæk; Martin Schalij; Leif Thuesen; Bas van der Hoeven; Marteen A Vink; Christoph Kaiser; Carmine Musto; Tania Chechi; Gaia Spaziani; Luis Salvador Diaz de la Llera; Vincenzo Pasceri; Emilio Di Lorenzo; Roberto Violini; Harry Suryapranata; Gregg W Stone Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Tobias Härle; Uwe Zeymer; Arne Kristian Schwarz; Claus Lüers; Matthias Hochadel; Harald Darius; Wolfgang Kasper; Karl Eugen Hauptmann; Dietrich Andresen; Albrecht Elsässer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jens Wiebe; Helge Möllmann; Astrid Most; Oliver Dörr; Kay Weipert; Johannes Rixe; Christoph Liebetrau; Albrecht Elsässer; Stephan Achenbach; Christian Hamm; Holger Nef Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Alberto Chisari; Anna Maria Pistritto; Raffaele Piccolo; Alessio La Manna; Gian Battista Danzi Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Rainer Zbinden; Raffaele Piccolo; Dik Heg; Marco Roffi; David J Kurz; Olivier Muller; André Vuilliomenet; Stéphane Cook; Daniel Weilenmann; Christoph Kaiser; Peiman Jamshidi; Anna Franzone; Franz Eberli; Peter Jüni; Stephan Windecker; Thomas Pilgrim Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 5.501