Search

This study evaluated and compared the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (n = 145 patients) with that of paclitaxel-eluting stents (n = 148 patients) in 293 consecutive unselected patients who had diabetes mellitus. Baseline clinical characteristics and presentations were similar: mean age of 64 years, 50% presented with unstable angina or myocardial infarction, and 66% had multivessel disease. Angiographic and procedural characteristics differed, with more complex lesions and more vein grafts managed in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group. Overall mean stented length was 46 +/- 32 mm. There were no differences in unadjusted outcomes by stent type (1-year major adverse cardiac event rates of 20.4% for sirolimus-eluting stents vs 15.6% for paclitaxel-eluting stents, p = 0.12) or when adjusted for multivariate predictors (adjusted hazard ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.24, p = 0.21). Independent predictors of outcome in patients who had diabetes mellitus were stenting of the left main artery, stenting of the left anterior descending artery, creatinine clearance, and female gender. Patients who required insulin had a significantly higher, crude major adverse cardiac event rate at 1 year compared with those who used oral agents, but this rate became nonsignificant when adjusted for independent predictors of outcome.

Objectives: We investigated the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) when used without restriction in unselected patients., Background: Both SES and PES have been separately shown to be efficacious when compared to bare stents. In unselected patients, no direct comparison between the two devices has been performed., Methods: Paclitaxel-eluting stents have been used as the stent of choice for all percutaneous coronary interventions in the prospective Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registry. A total of 576 consecutive patients with de novo coronary artery disease exclusively treated with PES were compared with 508 patients treated with SES from the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry., Results: The PES patients were more frequently male, more frequently treated for acute myocardial infarction, had longer total stent lengths, and more frequently received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. At one year, the raw cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 13.9% in the PES group and 10.5% in the SES group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 1.88, p = 0.1). Correction for differences in the two groups resulted in an adjusted HR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.64, p = 0.4, using significant univariate variables) and an adjusted HR of 1.20 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.70, p = 0.3, using independent predictors). The one-year cumulative incidence of clinically driven target vessel revascularization was 5.4% versus 3.7%, respectively (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.43, p = 0.3)., Conclusions: The universal use of PES in an unrestricted setting is safe and is associated with a similar adjusted outcome compared to SES. The inferior trend in crude outcome seen in PES was due to its higher-risk population. A larger, randomized study enrolling an unselected population may assist in determining the relative superiority of either device.