Sirolimus- vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: Complete 2-year follow-up of a two-center registry

Abstract

BackgroundThe feasibility of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents and its comparability with bypass surgery in treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis has been shown previously. We compared the mid-to long-term outcome between sirolimus-(SES) vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in an all-comer analysis that included all patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis who underwent PCI with SES or PES. MethodsFrom March 2003 and June 2007, 196 patients underwent PCI with SES or PES for unprotected LMCA stenosis at Seoul National University Main or Bundang Hospital; SES was implanted in 141 patients and PES in 55 patients. The baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were mostly similar between the SES and PES group. ResultsAfter 2years of follow-up, there were no differences in the rate of cardiac death (9.1% vs. 8.5%) and nonfatal MI (5.5% vs. 2.8%) between the two groups. However, the risk of repeat revascularization tended to be lower in the SES group compared with the PES group [TLR, 9.9% vs. 20.0% (P=0.06); TVR, 17.7% vs. 30.9% (P=0.05)], which did not reach statistical significance. The rate of stent thrombosis (ST) was also similar between the two groups (3.6% vs. 2.1% for definite ST, 3.6% vs. 2.8% for definite+probable ST). ConclusionsIn all-comers undergoing first generation DES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis, PES and SES showed comparable 2-year clinical results regarding hard endpoints and major adverse cardiac events.