Unrestricted Utilization of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Compared With Conventional Bare Stent Implantation in the “Real World”
The Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) Registry
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Background— The effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in unselected patients treated in the daily practice is currently unknown.
Methods and Results— Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation has been used as the default strategy for all percutaneous procedures in our hospital as part of the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. Consecutive patients with de novo lesions (n=508) treated exclusively with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES group) were compared with 450 patients who received bare stents in the period just before (pre-SES group). Patients in the SES group more frequently had multivessel disease, more type C lesions, received more stents, and had more bifurcation stenting. At 1 year, the cumulative rate of major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) was 9.7% in the SES group and 14.8% in the pre-SES group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.89]; P=0.008). The 1-year risk of clinically driven target vessel revascularization in the SES group and in the pre-SES group was 3.7% versus 10.9%, respectively (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.57]; P<0.001).
Conclusions— Unrestricted utilization of sirolimus-eluting stents in the “real world” is safe and effective in reducing both repeat revascularization and major adverse cardiac events at 1 year compared with bare stent implantation.
Received July 28, 2003; revision received October 2, 2003; accepted October 6, 2003.