Is the sirolimus drug eluting stent better than paclitaxel coated stent in "real life" environment?
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_7C064190E600
Type
Inproceedings: an article in a conference proceedings.
Publication sub-type
Abstract (Abstract): shot summary in a article that contain essentials elements presented during a scientific conference, lecture or from a poster.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Is the sirolimus drug eluting stent better than paclitaxel coated stent in "real life" environment?
Title of the conference
53rd Annual Scientific Session of the American College of Cardiology (ACC)
Address
New Orleans, Louisiana, United-States, March 7-10, 2004
ISBN
0735-1097
ISSN-L
0735-1097
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2004
Volume
43
Series
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Pages
A86
Language
english
Abstract
Background: Active stents seems to improve the outcome after percutaneous intervention
(PCI) in reducing MACE at 9 months. However no prospective data comparing various
devices are available.
Method: Since March 2003, all patients suitable for stent implantation were randomized
to receive either a sirolimus eluting stent (SES) or a paclitaxel active stent (PAS). Standard
procedures were performed. Aspirin and clopidogrel were initiated for at least one
year. Clinical outcome (MACE incidence at 9 months) is the primary end-point. Control
angiography was performed only when clinically driven.
Results: A total of 102 pts were included (mean age 66±11), (24 female), received a 54
SES and 48 a PAS. Demographic data were comparable with a proportion of 8 pts with
unstable angina. Diabetes was present in 7 pts the SES group and in 6 pts in the PAS
group. Baseline data and follow-up at 3 months are presented in the table below:The incidence
of MACE did not differ after a mean follow-up of 3 ±4 months between the 2
groups. Particularly no pt died in either group. MI did not occur either. Only sub-acute
thrombosis was documented in 2 pts in the PAS group. TLR and TVR were required in 0
pts in the SES group versus 2 pts in the PAS group.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between sirolimus
and paclitaxel group during this short follow-up. Nine-month follow-up will be available
at time of presentation.
(PCI) in reducing MACE at 9 months. However no prospective data comparing various
devices are available.
Method: Since March 2003, all patients suitable for stent implantation were randomized
to receive either a sirolimus eluting stent (SES) or a paclitaxel active stent (PAS). Standard
procedures were performed. Aspirin and clopidogrel were initiated for at least one
year. Clinical outcome (MACE incidence at 9 months) is the primary end-point. Control
angiography was performed only when clinically driven.
Results: A total of 102 pts were included (mean age 66±11), (24 female), received a 54
SES and 48 a PAS. Demographic data were comparable with a proportion of 8 pts with
unstable angina. Diabetes was present in 7 pts the SES group and in 6 pts in the PAS
group. Baseline data and follow-up at 3 months are presented in the table below:The incidence
of MACE did not differ after a mean follow-up of 3 ±4 months between the 2
groups. Particularly no pt died in either group. MI did not occur either. Only sub-acute
thrombosis was documented in 2 pts in the PAS group. TLR and TVR were required in 0
pts in the SES group versus 2 pts in the PAS group.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between sirolimus
and paclitaxel group during this short follow-up. Nine-month follow-up will be available
at time of presentation.
Create date
28/01/2008 11:11
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:37
Usage data
