Efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in an unselected population with coronary artery disease: 24-month outcomes of patients in a prospective non-randomized registry in southern Turkey

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of drug-eluting stents has been shown in randomized trials, but some controversy exists regarding which stent sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting is more effective in unselected Turkish patients. Therefore, we investigated the clinical outcomes of patients who were treated with one type of these drug-eluting stents in the real world. Methods: We created a registry and prospectively analyzed data on a consecutive series of all patients who presented to our institution with symptomatic coronary artery disease between February 2005 and March 2007 and who were treated with the sirolimus- or the paclitaxel-eluting stent. The follow-up period after stent implantation was approximately 24 months. The primary end point was a major cardiac event, and the secondary end point was stent thrombosis. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects, and the study protocol was approved by the local ethical committee. Results: In total, 204 patients were treated with either the sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 103) or the paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 101). The lesions in the 2 arms of the study were treated similarly by conventional technique. At 24-month follow-up, patients who received the paclitaxel- eluting stent showed significantly higher rates of non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (1.9% vs 5.9%; P:.002), target vessel revascularization (1.9% vs 4.9%; P:.002), coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1.9% vs 6.9%; P:.001), and late stent thrombosis (1.9% vs 3.9%, P:.002). Conclusions: Patients who received the sirolimus-eluting stent showed better clinical outcomes compared with those who had the paclitaxel-eluting-stent. Key words: coronary artery disease, drug-eluting stent, major adverse cardiac event, stent thrombosis. © Ivyspring International Publisher.