The unrestricted use of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents results in better clinical outcomes during 6-year follow-up than bare-metal stents: an analysis of the RESEARCH (Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital) and T-SEARCH (Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital) registries

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the 6-year clinical outcome after unrestricted use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) as compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in consecutive de novo patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Background: SES and PES have been shown to significantly decrease target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates compared with BMS in "real-world" registries. However, possible higher rates of very-late stent thrombosis and a restenosis "catch-up" trend might jeopardize the benefit.

Methods: Three PCI cohorts, each with exclusive use of 1 stent type (BMS = 450; SES = 508; PES = 576), were systematically followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Results: Very-late stent thrombosis was more common in SES and PES patients than BMS patients (2.4% vs. 0.9% vs. 0.4%, respectively; p = 0.02); however, there were no significant differences between the stent types for all-cause mortality and all-cause mortality/myocardial infarction at 6-year follow-up. Sixty-nine SES patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate 14%) and 72 PES patients (14%) had a TVR, as compared with 79 BMS patients (18%; log-rank p = 0.02), which maintained significance after adjustment for (potential) confounders. Multivariate analysis showed that DES implantation is associated with lower incidence of TVR and MACE than BMS implantation (hazard ratio: 0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.86; p = 0.003; hazard ratio: 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.65 to 0.97; p = 0.02, respectively). Incidence of MACE was also lower in SES and PES patients (30% and 30%, respectively) than in BMS patients (34%); however, significance was borderline.

Conclusions: The unrestricted use of both DES resulted in a sustained advantage in decreasing TVR and, to a lesser extent, MACE compared with BMS at 6 years. The SES and PES are equally safe and effective in the treatment of coronary lesions.