Sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to paclitaxel-eluting stent for coronary intervention in patients with renal insufficiency: Long-term clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Renal insufficiency (RI) is an independent risk factor for the adverse cardiovascular events. Long-term clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with RI is unknown especially in the era of first generation drug-eluting stents (DES). This study aims at comparing clinical outcomes between sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) based on large scaled registry.

METHODS

Patients who underwent PCI with DES from January 2004 to December 2009 in the Catholic University of Korea-PCI (COACT) registry were prospectively enrolled. A group of 1,033 patients with RI, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate under 60 mL/min, were analyzed. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) according to the type of stents were compared.

RESULTS

Median follow-up period was 810 days (interquartile range: from 361 to 1,354 days). A group of 612 (59.2%) patients were treated with SES and 421 (40.8%) patients were treated with PES. The PES vs. SES group had significantly higher rate of MACE (35.9% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.01). In multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis, PES vs. SES group had significantly higher rate of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.64, p = 0.033), particularly pronounced by all-cause death (AHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.008-1.770; p = 0.044). In further analysis with propensity score matching, overall findings were consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RI, PCI using PES provides poorer clinical outcomes than SES in terms of MACE and all-cause death.