Paclitaxel-Eluting versus Uncoated Stents in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation (PASSION) trial compared the use of paclitaxel-eluting stents with uncoated stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment ele...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe New England journal of medicine Vol. 355; no. 11; pp. 1105 - 1113
Main Authors Laarman, Gerrit J, Suttorp, Maarten J, Dirksen, Maurits T, van Heerebeek, Loek, Kiemeneij, Ferdinand, Slagboom, Ton, van der Wieken, L. Ron, Tijssen, Jan G.P, Rensing, Benno J, Patterson, Mark
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Boston, MA Massachusetts Medical Society 14.09.2006
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0028-4793
1533-4406
1533-4406
DOI10.1056/NEJMoa062598

Cover

More Information
Summary:The Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation (PASSION) trial compared the use of paclitaxel-eluting stents with uncoated stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. Although the paclitaxel-eluting stent was associated with a trend toward fewer serious adverse cardiac events, the trend was not significant. The paclitaxel-eluting stent was associated with a trend toward fewer serious adverse cardiac events, but the trend was not significant. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is now considered the optimal approach to the management of myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation when the procedure is performed expeditiously and at a high-volume center. 1 – 5 Stent implantation is associated with an improvement in both early and late outcomes, as compared with balloon angioplasty alone, predominantly as a result of a reduction in target-vessel revascularization. 6 , 7 Furthermore, drug-eluting stents have been shown to reduce in-stent restenosis (and therefore the need for repeated intervention) in a number of subgroups of patients. 8 , 9 Retrospective studies and one small, randomized trial have suggested that the use of . . .
Bibliography:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-General Information-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Commentary-2
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Commentary-1
ObjectType-Article-3
ObjectType-Undefined-4
ISSN:0028-4793
1533-4406
1533-4406
DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa062598