Drug-eluting stent for the treatment of small coronary lesion: comparison between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stent

作者:Li Jian-jun*; Xu Bo; Yang Yue-jin; Chen Ji-lin; Qiao Shu-bin; Ma Wei-hua; Qin Xue-wen; Yao Min; Liu Hai-bo; Wu Yong-jian; Yuan Jin-qing; Chen Jue; You Shi-jie; Dai Jun; Xia Ran; Gao Run-lin
来源:Chinese Medical Journal, 2007, 120(7): 569-573.
DOI:10.1097/00029330-200704010-00008

摘要

Background Patients with small coronary lesions are at increased risk for repeat interventions after coronary angioplasty and stenting. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) has been demonstrated to improve the outcomes of these patients and is a focus of interest. Currently, two platforms of DES are available (sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)). However, it has less been known that DES, SES vs PES, is superior for the treatment of small coronary lesions. @@@ Methods In this retrospective study, 87 consecutive patients with 1:51 lesions underwent implantation of coronary SES (n=68) and PES (n=83). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed at the time of stent implantation and subsequently at 8 months post-stenting. Small vessel disease was defined as lesions in vessels with diameter <= 2.5mm measured by QCA. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were compared between the two groups. @@@ Results Baseline clinical characteristics and angiographic parameters were similar between the two groups. At clinical and angiographic follow-up, overall thrombosis rates were similar in both groups (0 vs 1.2%, P > 0.05). The TLR and in-segment restenosis were not significantly different.(19.1% vs 25.3%; 10.3% vs 10.8%, P=0.365 and P=0.913 respectively) between the two groups. The in-stent restenosis rate, however, was significantly higher in the PES group (4.4% vs 21.7%; P=0.002). Similarly, the late loss was significantly higher in the PES group ((0.14 +/- 0.38) mm vs (0.49 +/- 0.61) mm; P < 0.001). @@@ Conclusions In this small sample-size, non-randomized study, the data indicated that implantation of SES for the treatment of patients with small coronary lesion showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared with PES implantation.