Lack of clinical benefit of improved angiographic results with sirolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel and zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

There is limited information regarding the angiographic and clinical outcomes among the different drug-eluting stents (DESs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

RESULTS

A total 355 consecutive AMI patients who underwent PCI with a sirolimus- (SES, n=116) or paclitaxel- (PES, n=153) or zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES, n=86) were enrolled. The 6-month angiographic and 1-year clinical outcomes were compared among the 3 groups. At 6 months, there was a trend toward a higher incidence of binary restenosis in the PES group (SES: 8.6%, PES: 19.8%, ZES: 8.3%, P=0.052). Percentage of restenosis was higher in the PES group compared with SES, but was similar to ZES (SES: 18.75 +/-18.16%, PES: 29.32 +/-24.16%, ZES: 23.91 +/-17.03%, P=0.006). Late loss was lower in the SES group compared with PES and ZES (SES: 0.44 +/-0.52, PES: 0.83 +/-0.87, ZES: 0.75 +/-0.63, P<0.001). However, clinical outcomes, including mortality, MI, repeat PCI and major adverse cardiac events, were not different among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The angiographic benefit of SES did not translate into a clinical benefit for up to 1 year in AMI patients.