• Jue Chen, Jian-Jun Li, Ji-Lin Chen, Shu-Bing Qiao, Bo Xu, Yue-Jin Yang, Run-Lin Gao, Xue-Wen Qin, Jin-Qing Yuan, Min Yao, Yong-Jian Wu, Hai-Bo Liu, Jun Dai, and Shi-Jie You.
• Department of Cardiology, Fu Wai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, PR China.
• Coron. Artery Dis. 2008 Nov 1; 19 (7): 507-11.

BackgroundTreatment of ostial coronary lesions represents a challenge for interventional cardiologists. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) has been demonstrated as improving the outcomes of patients in a few studies. It is not known, however, which DES, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), is superior for the treatment of ostial lesions.MethodsIn this retrospective study, 95 consecutive patients with de-novo ostial lesions underwent coronary SES (n=47, lesions=48) or PES implantation (n=45, lesions=47), and quantitative coronary analysis was performed at the time of stent implantation and subsequently at 8 months post stenting. Ostial lesion was defined as > or =50% diameter stenosis rising within 3 mm of either left anterior descending coronary artery or left circumflex artery or right coronary artery measured by quantitative coronary analysis. Major adverse cardiac events including death, thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization were compared between the two groups.ResultsBaseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. At 8 months clinical and angiographic follow-up, overall major adverse cardiac events and target lesion revascularization rates were similar in both groups (6.4 vs. 11.2%, P=0.184; 4.3 vs. 8.9%, P=0.170, respectively). The in-stent and in-segment restenosis were, however, significantly higher in PES group compared with SES group (15.5 vs. 0%, P=0.001; 22.2 vs. 4.3%, P=0.003). Similarly, the late loss in both in-stent and in-segment was significantly higher in the PES group than in SES group (0.65+ or -0.67 vs. 0.16+ or -0.18 mm; 0.68+ or -0.65 vs. 0.15+ or -0.12 mm; P<0.001, respectively).ConclusionIn this small sample-size, nonrandomized, and nonprospective study, the data indicated that implantation of DES appears safe and effective for the treatment of patients with de-novo ostial coronary lesions, but SES implantation showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared with PES implantation.

31 keywords...

hide…