Background: Sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, reduce the risk of restenosis. It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between the two types of drug-eluting stents.
Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 1012 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization of the target lesion) by nine months. Follow-up angiography was completed in 540 of 1012 patients (53.4 percent).
Results: The two groups had similar baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at nine months was 6.2 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 10.8 percent in the paclitaxel-stent group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.86; P=0.009). The difference was driven by a lower rate of target-lesion revascularization in the sirolimus-stent group than in the paclitaxel-stent group (4.8 percent vs. 8.3 percent; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.93; P=0.03). Rates of death from cardiac causes were 0.6 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 1.6 percent in the paclitaxel-stent group (P=0.15); the rates of myocardial infarction were 2.8 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively (P=0.49); and the rates of angiographic restenosis were 6.6 percent and 11.7 percent, respectively (P=0.02).
Conclusions: As compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents results in fewer major adverse cardiac events, primarily by decreasing the rates of clinical and angiographic restenosis.
Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.