Open AccessClinical and Angiographic Outcomes of Drug‐Eluting Stents in Patients With Large Vessel and Single Coronary Artery Lesion
Author(s) -
Kim Ung,
Kim DongKie,
Seol SangHoon,
Yang TaeHyun,
Kim DaeKyung,
Kim DooIl,
Kim DongSoo,
Lee SangHee,
Hong GeuRu,
Park JongSeon,
Shin DongGu,
Kim YoungJo,
Cho YoonKyung,
Kim HyungSeop,
Nam ChangWook,
Hur SeungHo,
Kim KwonBae
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
clinical cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.263
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1932-8737
pISSN - 0160-9289
DOI - 10.1002/clc.20744
Subject(s) - medicine , mace , drug eluting stent , stent , cardiology , myocardial infarction , target lesion , sirolimus , coronary artery disease , artery , percutaneous coronary intervention , restenosis
Background The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of 3 drug‐eluting stents (DES) in patients with large vessel diameter and single coronary artery lesions. Hypothesis The efficacy of 3 DESs may be similar. Methods A total of 411 consecutive patients who visited 3 university hospitals from June 2004 to December 2007 and had a single coronary lesion which was treated with the use of a DES that was 3.5 mm in diameter were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into 3 stent groups: Paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES, n = 105), Sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES, n = 259), and Zotarolimus‐eluting stent (ZES, n = 47). The study end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia‐driven target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) for 12 months. Results Baseline characteristics were not different. Late loss was higher in the ZES group than the other stents (0.5 ± 0.4 mm in SES vs 0.3 ± 0.5 mm in PES, 0.7 ± 0.5 mm in ZES, P = 0.001). The total MACE‐free survival rate was not significantly different between the SES group and the PES group (98.8% in SES vs 97.1% in PES, P = 0.252) or the PES group and the ZES group (97.1% in PES vs 93.6% in ZES, P = 0.301). However, the SES group showed a significantly better MACE‐free survival rate compared with the ZES group (98.8% in SES vs 93.6% in ZES, P = 0.018). Conclusions Clinical and angiographic outcomes of DES in a large vessel diameter and single coronary artery is excellent and SES appears to show better angiographic and clinical outcomes than ZES. Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.