Abstract
Background
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of 3 drug‐eluting stents (DES) in patients with large vessel diameter and single coronary artery lesions.
Hypothesis
The efficacy of 3 DESs may be similar.
Methods
A total of 411 consecutive patients who visited 3 university hospitals from June 2004 to December 2007 and had a single coronary lesion which was treated with the use of a DES that was 3.5 mm in diameter were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into 3 stent groups: Paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES, n = 105), Sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES, n = 259), and Zotarolimus‐eluting stent (ZES, n = 47). The study end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia‐driven target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) for 12 months.
Results
Baseline characteristics were not different. Late loss was higher in the ZES group than the other stents (0.5 ± 0.4 mm in SES vs 0.3 ± 0.5 mm in PES, 0.7 ± 0.5 mm in ZES, P = 0.001). The total MACE‐free survival rate was not significantly different between the SES group and the PES group (98.8% in SES vs 97.1% in PES, P = 0.252) or the PES group and the ZES group (97.1% in PES vs 93.6% in ZES, P = 0.301). However, the SES group showed a significantly better MACE‐free survival rate compared with the ZES group (98.8% in SES vs 93.6% in ZES, P = 0.018).
Conclusions
Clinical and angiographic outcomes of DES in a large vessel diameter and single coronary artery is excellent and SES appears to show better angiographic and clinical outcomes than ZES. Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (170.1 KB).
References
- 1. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus‐eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1773–1780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. A polymer‐based, paclitaxel‐eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 221–231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Ellis SG, Bajzer CT, Bhatt DL, et al. Real‐world bare metal stenting: identification of patients at low or very low risk of 9‐month coronary revascularization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 63: 135–140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Kaiser C, Brunner‐La Rocca HP, Buser PT, et al. Incremental cost‐effectiveness of drug‐eluting stents compared with a third‐generation bare‐metal stent in a real‐world setting: randomised Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitats Trial (BASKET). Lancet 2005; 366: 921–929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cannon L, et al. Comparison of a polymer‐based paclitaxel‐eluting stent with a bare metal stent in patients with complex coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 294: 1215–1223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007; 115: 2344–2351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Yan BP, Ajani AE, New G, et al. Are drug‐eluting stents indicated in large coronary arteries? Insights from a multi‐centre percutaneous coronary intervention registry. Int J Cardiol 2008; 130: 374–379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Cutlip DE, Chauhan MS, Baim DS, et al. Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting: perspectives from multicenter clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40: 2082–2089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Elezi S, Kastrati A, Neumann FJ, et al. Vessel size and long‐term outcome after coronary stent placement. Circulation 1998; 98: 1875–1880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Foley DP, Melkert R, Serruys PW. Influence of coronary vessel size on renarrowing process and late angiographic outcome after successful balloon angioplasty. Circulation 1994; 90: 1239–1251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Mercado N, Boersma E, Wijns W, et al. Clinical and quantitative coronary angiographic predictors of coronary restenosis: a comparative analysis from the balloon‐to‐stent era. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38: 645–652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Steinberg DH, Mishra S, Javaid A, et al. Comparison of effectiveness of bare metal stents versus drug‐eluting stents in large (≥3.5 mm) coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol 2007; 99: 599–602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Quizhpe AR, Feres F, de Ribamar Costa J Jr, et al. Drug‐eluting stents vs bare metal stents for the treatment of large coronary vessels. Am Heart J 2007; 154: 373–378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Gershlick A, Kandzari DE, Leon MB, et al. Zotarolimus‐eluting stents in patients with native coronary artery disease: clinical and angiographic outcomes in 1317 patients. Am J Cardiol 2007; 100: 45M–55M. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, et al. Restenosis after coronary placement of various stent types. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87: 34–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, et al. Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (ISAR‐STEREO) trial. Circulation 2001; 103:s 2816–2821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Pache J, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, et al. Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (ISAR‐STEREO‐2) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41: 1283–1288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]