Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Apr 5;45(7):1135-41.

The unrestricted use of paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary artery disease in an unselected population: one-year results of the Taxus-Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registry.

Author information

1
Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015-GD Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

We investigated the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) when used without restriction in unselected patients.

BACKGROUND:

Both SES and PES have been separately shown to be efficacious when compared to bare stents. In unselected patients, no direct comparison between the two devices has been performed.

METHODS:

Paclitaxel-eluting stents have been used as the stent of choice for all percutaneous coronary interventions in the prospective Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registry. A total of 576 consecutive patients with de novo coronary artery disease exclusively treated with PES were compared with 508 patients treated with SES from the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry.

RESULTS:

The PES patients were more frequently male, more frequently treated for acute myocardial infarction, had longer total stent lengths, and more frequently received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. At one year, the raw cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 13.9% in the PES group and 10.5% in the SES group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 1.88, p = 0.1). Correction for differences in the two groups resulted in an adjusted HR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.64, p = 0.4, using significant univariate variables) and an adjusted HR of 1.20 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.70, p = 0.3, using independent predictors). The one-year cumulative incidence of clinically driven target vessel revascularization was 5.4% versus 3.7%, respectively (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.43, p = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS:

The universal use of PES in an unrestricted setting is safe and is associated with a similar adjusted outcome compared to SES. The inferior trend in crude outcome seen in PES was due to its higher-risk population. A larger, randomized study enrolling an unselected population may assist in determining the relative superiority of either device.

PMID:
15808774
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2005.01.008
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center