Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Abstract

Background— Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction with bare metal stents (BMS) is well established, while randomized trials suggest equivalent safety and reduced repeat revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES) in this setting. However, long-term data on DES in PPCI is lacking, especially in those ineligible for inclusion in randomized trials. Our aim was to investigate the long-term outcomes of unselected patients undergoing PPCI with BMS and DES. Methods and Results— We analyzed all patients (n=1738) undergoing PPCI for a de novo lesion in our institution from 2000 to 2005. Patients from 3 sequential consecutive cohorts of BMS (n=531), sirolimus-eluting (SES, n=185) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, n=1022) were included. The median duration of follow-up was 1185 days (interquartile range, 746 to 1675). There were no differences in all-cause mortality or repeat revascularization between DES and BMS, although there was a nonsignificant trend toward improved survival with SES compared with both BMS (propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; [95%CI, 0.33 to 1.18]) and PES (hazard ratio, 0.71; [95% CI, 0.40 to 1.26]). SES were associated with lower rates of the composite end point of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.40 to 0.96) when compared with PES. Very late stent thrombosis only occurred in the DES groups. Conclusions— Although DES are not associated with an increase in adverse events compared with BMS when used for PPCI, neither DES reduced repeat revascularizations. Appropriately powered randomized trials with hard clinical end points and an “all-comer” design are required to further assess the benefit of DES in PPCI.