A comparison of angiographic and clinical outcomes after sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of in-stent restenosis / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

ABSTRACT

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenge for interventional cardiologists. Some data suggest that drug-eluting stents (DES) represent a promising new option for the treatment of patients with ISR. Currently, 2 DES platforms are available [sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES)], but the superiority of either approach for treating ISR has not been convincingly demonstrated. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively compare angiographic and clinical outcomes after treatment of ISR with SES or PES in a series of consecutive patients with ISR.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A total of 745 consecutive patients were treated with bare metal stents from April 12, 2004 to December 31, 2004 in our center. Of these, clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) was performed in 54 ISR from 54 patients at 7 months. Of the 54 patients with ISR, 36 received SES and 18 received PES. Follow-up included angiography and assessment of clinical outcome, both performed 7 months after DES implantation.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There were no significant differences in baseline clinical data (including medication usage and lesion characteristics) between the two groups. Except for overlapping of multiple stents, procedural parameters were also similar in both groups. Seven-month angiographic follow-up showed that the binary restenosis rate was higher in patients treated with PES than that in patients treated with SES (in-stent binary restenosis 27.8% vs 5.6%, P < 0.023; In-segment binary restenosis 44.4% vs 13.9%, P < 0.014). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) occurring during hospitalization or during the follow-up period including thrombosis and TLR was similar in both groups (22.2% vs 8.3%, P > 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Results from this small sample size, retrospective, single-center study showed that SES might be superior to PES in treating ISR because of lower 7-month restenosis rates (both in-stent and in-segment binary restenosis) with no increased incidence of MACE.</p>