Clinical outcomes of second-generation limus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

ObjectiveWhether the cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of second-generation limus-eluting stents (LESs) differ from those of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is still unclear.MethodsWe used the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database to analyse data of 516 patients with AMI and CS diagnosed from January 2007 to December 2011. We used propensity score matching to adjust for the imbalance in covariate baseline values between these two groups. We evaluated clinical outcomes by comparing 197 subjects who used second-generation LESs to 319 matched subjects who used PESs.ResultsThe risk of the primary composite outcomes (i.e., myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation or CV death) was significantly lower in the second-generation LES group than in the PES group [37.3% vs. 51.8%; hazard ratio (HR), 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56-0.95] at the 12-month follow-up. The patients who received second-generation LESs had a lower risk of coronary revascularisation (HR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41-0.93) than those who used PESs. However, the risks of myocardial infarction (HR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.26-1.24), ischemic stroke (HR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.23-2.35), or CV death (HR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.63-1.28) were not significantly different between the two groups.ConclusionsAmong patients with CS-complicating AMI, second-generation LES implantation significantly reduced the risk of coronary revascularisation and composite CV events compared to PES implantation at the 12-month follow-up.