Comparison of one-year clinical outcomes with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in everyday practice

BACKGROUND: In randomized trials, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing restenosis. However, the effectiveness of PES in patients treated during routine practice has not been fully established. METHODS: A retrospective comparison of PES with BMS in consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from April 2003 to March 2004 was conducted. Outcomes included the composite of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at one year, as well as stent thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 512 patients were treated with PES, and 722 patients were treated with BMS. Patients in the PES group were more likely to receive stents that were 20 mm in length or longer (52.2% versus 33.3%, P<0.0001), 2.5 mm in diameter or smaller (29.1% versus 12.5%, P<0.0001) and implanted in bifurcation positions (15.4% versus 11.6%, P=0.02). At one year, the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and TLR was 6.1% in the PES group compared with 10.8% in the BMS group (P=0.004). The one-year rate of stent thrombosis was 0.59% in the PES group compared with 0.28% in the BMS group (P=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being used in higher-risk lesions, there was a lower rate of major cardiac events at one year in patients treated with PES, primarily driven by the reduction in TLR. Thus, the experience with PES in contemporary practice applied to a broader population appears to be consistent with the results reported in randomized trials.