Comparison of the effectiveness of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for small coronary artery lesions.

BACKGROUND The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) reduce restenosis in small coronary artery lesions. However, it is not clear which of these stents is superior in terms of clinical outcomes. METHODS The authors retrospectively examined 197 patients with 245 de novo small coronary artery lesions (<or=<or=2.75 mm) that were treated with either the SES (156 lesions) or the PES (89 lesions). Six-month angiographic restenosis rates and the 9-month target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS In terms of baseline clinical and angiographic parameters, the two groups well matched together. Six-month angiographic follow-up was performed on 170 patients (86.3%), comprising 135 SES lesions (86.5%) and 76 PES lesions (85.4%). At 6-month angiographic follow-up, the late lumen loss was less in the SES group than in the PES group (0.29 +/- 0.42 vs. 0.69 +/- 0.63 mm, P < 0.01). Therefore, the SES group showed a lower rate of angiographic restenosis than the PES group (6.7% vs. 27.7%, P < 0.01). At 9 months there were no deaths or myocardial infarctions in either group. The 9-month TLR rate was lower in the SES group than in the PES group (3.3% vs. 14.4%, P < 0.01). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from TLR at 9 months was 96.7% for the SES patients and 86.5% for the PES patients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS The SES treatment may be superior to the PES treatment in terms of long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with small coronary artery lesions.