Skip to main content
Sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy.
- Author(s): Lee, Michael S;
- Tarantini, Giuseppe;
- Xhaxho, Jola;
- Yang, Tae;
- Ehdaie, Ashkan;
- Bhatia, Ravi;
- Favaretto, Enrico;
- Tobis, Jonathan
- et al.
Published Web Locationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.02.005
ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in the treatment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV).
BackgroundPCI in patients with CAV is associated with increased rates of restenosis compared with PCI in patients without CAV. There are no dedicated studies on the influence of different drug-eluting stents (DES) on the outcomes of patients with CAV.
MethodsThis is a retrospective observational study of 108 consecutive patients with CAV who underwent PCI with SES and PES at UCLA Medical Center and University of Padova Medical Center between 2002 and 2008.
ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar among SES (n = 68) and PES (n = 40) patients with the exception of older patients, larger minimal lumen diameter, and smaller diameter stenosis in the SES-treated patients. Angiographic follow-up at 1 year was high in the SES and PES groups (74% vs. 76%, p = 0.8). The SES and PES groups had similar binary restenosis rates (10% vs. 9%, p = 0.7), percent diameter stenosis (24 +/- 24% vs. 24 +/- 18%, p = 0.94), and late lumen loss (0.67 +/- 1.03 mm vs. 0.68 +/- 1.11 mm, p > 0.9). One-year clinical outcomes were not significantly different among CAV patients treated with either SES or PES (major adverse cardiac events: 10% vs. 15%, p = 0.5; death: 3% vs. 5%, p = 0.4; myocardial infarction: 3% vs. 5%, p = 0.4; target vessel revascularization: 4% vs. 8%, p = 0.3).
ConclusionsIn patients who underwent PCI for CAV, both SES and PES were safe and effective with no significant differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes. Randomized clinical trials comparing different DES with longer follow-up are necessary to identify the optimal treatment strategy for patients with CAV.
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.