Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol-mandated angiographic follow-up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug-eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients.