Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Jan;7(9):1021-9.
doi: 10.4244/EIJV7I9A164.

Five-year clinical follow-up from the MISSION! Intervention Study: sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, a randomised controlled trial

Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Five-year clinical follow-up from the MISSION! Intervention Study: sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, a randomised controlled trial

Helèn Boden et al. EuroIntervention. 2012 Jan.
Free article

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus bare metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at long-term follow-up.

Methods and results: After five years, 310 STEMI patients randomly assigned to implantation of either SES or BMS, were compared. Survival rates were comparable between groups (SES 94.3% vs. BMS 92.8%, p=0.57), as were the rates of reinfarction (10.6% vs. 13.7%, p=0.40), freedom of death/re-MI (84.4% vs. 79.8%, p=0.29) and target vessel failure (14.9% vs. 21.7%, p=0.11). Likewise, rates of overall stent thrombosis (ST) (5.4% vs. 2.7%, p=0.28) and very late ST (4.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.07) did not significantly differ between the SES- and BMS-group. In 184 patients with IVUS data, definite and definite/probable VLST was more common in those with late stent malapposition versus those without late stent malapposition (4.3% and 6.6% vs. no events [p=0.018 and p=0.004], respectively). The cumulative incidences of target vessel and target lesion revascularisation (TVR and TLR) were not significantly lower in the SES-group (11.2% vs. 17.9%, p=0.09 and 7.2% vs. 12.9%, p=0.08), as was the rate of clinically driven TLR (6.6% vs. 9.5%, p=0.30).

Conclusions: SES implantation was neither associated with increased rates of major adverse cardiac events, nor with a reduction in re-intervention, compared to implantation of a BMS in patients with STEMI after five years. However, a trend of more very late stent thrombosis was observed after SES implantation (ISRCTN62825862).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources