THURSDAY, June 18 (HealthDay News) -- In unselected patients with coronary artery disease -- including those considered high risk -- everolimus-eluting stents may be as safe as bare-metal stents, sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents, and more effective than either bare-metal or paclitaxel-eluting stents, according to a study published early online June 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Yoshinobu Onuma, M.D., from the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and colleagues compared six-month outcomes in 649 patients who received everolimus-eluting stents, 450 who received bare-metal stents, 508 who received sirolimus-eluting stents, and 576 who received paclitaxel-eluting stents.
Compared to everolimus-eluting stents, the researchers found that bare-metal stents were associated with a higher risk of target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events (adjusted hazard ratios, 2.02 and 2.15, respectively) and that paclitaxel-eluting stents were associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.57). They also found that clinical outcomes were similar in patients who received everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents.
"In the present study, the rate of overall stent thrombosis at six months was similar in the everolimus-eluting stents and other stent groups, although there were no incidences of late stent thromboses with everolimus-eluting stents up to six months," the authors write. "Larger studies with longer follow-up will be necessary to assess the differential effects of everolimus-eluting stents on late and very late stent thrombosis."
Copyright © 2009 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
|Previous: Statin Cuts Post-Heart Attack Heart Failure Risk||Next: AMA: Policy Statement Supports Health Care Reform|
Reader comments on this article are listed below. Review our comments policy.