Search

We sought to compare the angiographic findings and mortality in patients with non–ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI) versus ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing early invasive intervention. Of 11,872 patients enrolled in the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry from November 2005 to January 2008, we studied patients with NSTEMI undergoing early invasive intervention (n = 1,486) and those with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 4,392). Multivessel coronary disease, baseline Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3, and the left circumflex artery as a culprit lesion occurred more frequently in patients with NSTEMI than in those with STEMI. Those with NSTEMI had a significantly lower mortality rate than those with STEMI during a median follow-up of about 12 months (3.8% vs 6.7%, p <0.001). In the patients with NSTEMI, the independent predictors of mortality included postprocedural TIMI flow grade 0 to 2 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 9.29, p = 0.047) and multivessel coronary disease (HR 3.83, 95% CI 1.36 to 10.81, p = 0.010) but not baseline TIMI flow or infarct location. However, baseline TIMI flow grade 0 to 2 (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.36, p = 0.035), anterior infarction (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.23, p <0.001), multivessel coronary disease (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.91, p = 0.008), and postprocedural TIMI flow grade 0 to 2 (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.82, p <0.001) were all independent predictors of mortality in the patients with STEMI. In conclusion, the angiographic findings in patients from NSTEMI differ from those in patients with STEMI. Postprocedural TIMI flow and multivessel coronary disease were independent predictors of mortality in patients with NSTEMI undergoing early invasive intervention. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for coronary bifurcation lesions. Background: There are limited data regarding comparisons of SES and PES for the treatment of bifurcation lesions. Methods: Patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left main bifurcation lesions were enrolled from 16 centers in Korea between January 2004 and June 2006. We compared major adverse cardiac events (MACE [cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization]) between the SES and PES groups in patients overall and in 407 patient pairs generated by propensity-score matching. Results: We evaluated 1,033 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with SES and 562 patients treated with PES. The median follow-up duration was 22 months. Treatment with SES was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.89, p < 0.01) and target lesion revascularization (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.97, p = 0.02), but not of cardiac death (HR: 2.77, 95% CI: 0.40 to 18.99, p = 0.62) and cardiac death or myocardial infarction (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.38 to 2.49, p = 0.94). After propensity-score matching, patients with SES still had fewer MACE and target lesion revascularization incidences than did patients with PES (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.91, p = 0.02, and HR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.91, p = 0.02, respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrences of stent thrombosis between the groups (0.7% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.94). Conclusions: In patients with bifurcation lesions, the use of SES resulted in better long-term outcomes than did the use of PES, primarily by decreasing the rate of repeat revascularization. (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry in South Korea [COBIS]; NCT00851526) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]