Published in:
01-03-2016 | Original Paper
Clinical outcome after percutaneous treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions using first or second generation of drug-eluting stents
Published in: Clinical Research in Cardiology | Issue 3/2016
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
There is increasing evidence that various types of drug-eluting stents (DES) may differ regarding the long-term safety and efficacy, particularly in complex lesion subsets.
Aims
In a cohort of consecutive patients undergoing bifurcation stenting, we sought to compare the 1-year efficacy and safety of the first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), the first-generation sirolimus-eluting (SES) and the second-generation everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents (EES/ZES).
Methods
We treated 2197 patients (mean age 67.5 years, 75.4 % male) with provisional T-stenting for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions using PES, SES or EES/ZES. Primary endpoint (MACE) was the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR).
Results
Side branch stenting was found to be clinically indicated in 793 patients (36.1 %). The cumulative 1-year incidence of MACE was 18.8 % after PES, 13.1 % after PCI with SES and 12.2 % after EES/ZES (p = 0.003), the combined endpoint death and MI occurred in 6.6, 5.6 and 8.3 % (p = 0.253) and death in 4.3, 5.2 and 5.3 % (p = 0.581), respectively. After adjustment for co-variables the type of DES was a significant (p = 0.008) predictor of MACE [HR (95 % confidence interval) PES vs SES 1.34 (1.04–1.71), PES vs. EES/ZES 1.75 (1.19–2.57), EES/ZES vs. SES 0.762 (0.531–1.095)], but not of death (p = 0.581), death and MI (p = 0.077) or stent thrombosis (ST) (p = 0.925).
Conclusions
In de novo coronary bifurcation lesions treated with provisional T-stenting, SES and EES/ZES achieved better outcomes than PES by reducing the need for reintervention.