Sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for coronary bifurcations intervention

Abstract

Relative efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) remains controversial. It is unknown whether there are different effect and safety in coronary bifurcation treatment between SES and PES. The meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of SES and PES in coronary bifurcation intervention. Five head-to-head clinical trials of SES versus PES in coronary bifurcation intervention were included. A total of 2,567 patients were involved in the meta-analysis. Mean follow-up period ranged from 6 to 35 months. The primary end points were the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) and main-branch restenosis. Secondary end points were target vessel revascularization (TVR), cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and stent thrombosis. Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of TLR (5.3% vs. 10.6%, odds ratio (OR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.38-0.70, P < 0.001), main-branch restenosis (4.59% vs. 12.59%, OR 0.31; 95% CI = 0.18-0.55, P < 0.001) and TVR (7.05% vs. 12.57%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.42-0.81, P = 0.001) in coronary bifurcation intervention. In addition, SES group also had a significantly lower incidence of MACE (8.20% vs. 14.13%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.40-0.84, P = 0.004) than PES group. However, there were no statistical difference with respect to the incidence of cardiac death (1.64% vs. 1.09%, P = 0.19) and stent thrombosis (0.84% vs. 1.08%, P = 0.64) between SES and PES groups. Compared with PES, SES reduced the incidence of TLR, main-branch restenosis and MACE in coronary bifurcation intervention, while the risk of stent thrombosis was similar between SES and PES groups.