Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis Comparison with bare metal stent implantation

ObjectivesThis study was designed to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and bare metal stent (BMS) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis.BackgroundThe safety and effectiveness of SES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis have not been ascertained.MethodsElective SES implantation for de novo unprotected LMCA stenosis was performed in 102 consecutive patients with preserved left ventricular function from March 2003 to March 2004. Data from this group were compared to those from 121 patients treated with BMS during the preceding two years.ResultsCompared to the BMS group, the SES group received more direct stenting, had fewer debulking atherectomies, had a greater number of stents, had more segments stented, and underwent more bifurcation stenting. The procedural success rate was 100% for both groups. There were no incidents of death, stent thrombosis, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), or emergent bypass surgery during hospitalization in either group. Despite less acute gain (2.06 ± 0.56 mm vs. 2.73 ± 0.73 mm, p < 0.001) in the SES group, SES patients showed a lower late lumen loss (0.05 ± 0.57 mm vs. 1.27 ± 0.90 mm, p < 0.001) and a lower six-month angiographic restenosis rate (7.0% vs. 30.3%, p < 0.001) versus the BMS group. At 12 months, the rate of freedom from death, MI, and target lesion revascularization was 98.0 ± 1.4% in the SES group and 81.4 ± 3.7% in the BMS group (p = 0.0003).ConclusionsSirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis appears safe with regard to acute and midterm complications and is more effective in preventing restenosis compared to BMS implantation.