Diabetic keto-acidosis and hyperkalaemia induced pseudo-myocardial infarction

Objective: To compare clinical outcome of paclitaxel eluting stents (PES) versus sirolimus eluting stents (SES) for the treatment of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. Design and patients: The first 136 consecutive patients treated exclusively with PES in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction in this single centre registry were prospectively clinically assessed at 30 days and one year. They were compared with 186 consecutive patients treated exclusively with SES in the preceding period. Setting: Academic tertiary referral centre. Results: At 30 days, the rate of all cause mortality and reinfarction was similar between groups (6.5% v 6.6% for SES and PES, respectively, p  =  1.0). A significant difference in target vessel revascularisation (TVR) was seen in favour of SES (1.1% v 5.1% for PES, p  =  0.04). This was driven by stent thrombosis (n  =  4), especially in the bifurcation stenting (n  =  2). At one year, no significant differences were seen between groups, with no late thrombosis and 1.5% in-stent restenosis (needing TVR) in PES versus no reinterventions in SES (p  =  0.2). One year survival free of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 90.2% for SES and 85% for PES (p  =  0.16). Conclusions: No significant differences were seen in MACE-free survival at one year between SES and PES for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with very low rates of reintervention for restenosis. Bifurcation stenting in acute myocardial infarction should, if possible, be avoided because of the increased risk of stent thrombosis.

[1]  Marco Valgimigli,et al.  The unrestricted use of paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary artery disease in an unselected population: one-year results of the Taxus-Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registry. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  P. Serruys,et al.  Thirty-day incidence and six-month clinical outcome of thrombotic stent occlusion after bare-metal, sirolimus, or paclitaxel stent implantation. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  Late thrombosis in drug-eluting coronary stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy , 2004, The Lancet.

[4]  P. Serruys,et al.  Short- and long-term clinical benefit of sirolimus-eluting stents compared to conventional bare stents for patients with acute myocardial infarction. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  G. Stone,et al.  A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Jeffrey W Moses,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  S. Silber,et al.  Randomized Study to Assess the Effectiveness of Slow- and Moderate-Release Polymer-Based Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Artery Lesions , 2003, Circulation.

[8]  J. Boura,et al.  Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials , 2003, The Lancet.

[9]  P. Serruys,et al.  A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  J. J. Griffin,et al.  Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  D. Baim,et al.  Stent Thrombosis in the Modern Era: A Pooled Analysis of Multicenter Coronary Stent Clinical Trials , 2001, Circulation.