Six-year clinical outcomes of first-generation drug-eluting stents: a propensity-matched analysis

• Published in: Coronary artery disease Vol. 24; no. 5; p. 440
• Main Authors: Tarantini, Giuseppe, Barioli, Alberto, Facchin, Michela, Frigo, Anna C, Napodano, Massimo, Buja, Paolo, D'Amico, Gianpiero, Iliceto, Sabino, Isabella, Giambattista
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.08.2013
• Subjects: Aged; Cardiovascular Agents - administration & dosage; Chi-Square Distribution; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis; Coronary Artery Disease - mortality; Coronary Artery Disease - therapy; Coronary Thrombosis - etiology; Disease-Free Survival; Drug-Eluting Stents; Female; Hospitals, High-Volume; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Logistic Models; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction - etiology; Paclitaxel - administration & dosage; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - adverse effects; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - instrumentation; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - mortality; Propensity Score; Prospective Studies; Prosthesis Design; Registries; Risk Factors; Sirolimus - administration & dosage; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1473-5830
• DOI: 10.1097/MCA.0b013e328362b2ab

Drug-eluting stents are more effective in reducing restenosis than bare-metal stents. Paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are the most widely used first-generation drug-eluting stents, but long-term comparative data on these are scant. The aim of the present report is to investigate the 6-year clinical outcomes of PES versus SES in a matched cohort of single-center registry patients. Data were obtained from the observational, monocentric registry of 632 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between September 2002 and September 2005 with PES or SES. We assessed the composite and separate occurrence of the major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). After a propensity 1 : 1 matching analysis, baseline clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. Throughout the 6 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences between PES and SES in terms of MACE (P=0.52), all-cause death (P=0.24), myocardial infarction (P=0.25), stent thrombosis (P=0.38), and TLR (P=0.68). The sensitivity analysis on the total unmatched population confirmed this result, the stent type not being predictive of MACE (PES vs. SES group, hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.41, P=0.87) or TLR (PES vs. the SES group, hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.69-2.64, P=0.38). In this 'real-life' registry, PES and SES showed a comparable safety and efficacy profile throughout the 6 years of follow-up. The increase in the rate of TLR was slow and comparable between the two groups, even though the 'late catch-up' phenomenon showed a different temporal pattern between PES and SES.