BACKGROUNDAs a kind of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) made in China, Firebird SES is more effective than bare metal stent (BMS) and not inferior to Cypher SES for short coronary lesions in terms of reduction of restenosis and revascularization. However, Firebird SES does not show any benefits in patients with a very long coronary lesion (VLCL). The present study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Firebird SES for VLCL by comparison of Cypher SES and BMS.

METHODSIn this prospective, nonrandomized and comparative study, eligible patients with de novo coronary lesion (> or = 30 mm) between January 2005 and June 2006 were allocated into Firebird SES group, Cypher SES group or BMS group. They were subjected to an angiographic follow-up of 6 months and a clinical follow-up of 12 months. The primary endpoints constitute the in-stent and in-segment restenosis rates at 6 months. The secondary endpoint was defined as a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) that was a 12-month combined endpoint of all-cause deaths, reinfarction or in-stent thrombosis, and target-lesion revascularization. The 12-month in-stent thrombosis was also evaluated to address the safety of Firebird SES implantation exceptionally.

RESULTSA total of 468 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of 113 patients who were finally included according to the prior inclusion and exclusion criteria, 39 (41 lesions) were treated with Firebird SES, 37 (39 lesions) with Cypher SES, and 37 (37 lesions) with BMS. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the three groups; but there were longer lesions, more frequent use of overlapping stent in the Firebird SES group and the Cypher SES group. Angiographic follow-up showed that the rates of binary stenosis were similar between the Firebird SES group and the Cypher SES group (in-segment: 14.6% vs 12.8%, relative risk (RR) 1.14, P = 0.81; in-stent: 9.8% vs 10.3%, RR 0.95, P = 0.94), and significantly lower than those in the BMS group (in-segment: vs. 36.1%, RR 0.41 or 0.36, P = 0.04 or 0.03, respectively; in-stent: vs 30.6%, RR 0.32 or 0.34, P = 0.03 or 0.04, respectively). The total MACE rate up to 12 months was also similar in both SES groups (7.7% vs 5.4%, P = 1.000), and significantly lower than that in the BMS group (27.0%, P = 0.034 or 0.024, respectively). The in-stent thrombosis rate in the follow-up period was 2.6% in the Firebird SES group, not higher in the Cypher SES and BMS groups (2.7% and 2.7%, respectively, P = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONSIn the treatment of VLCL, Firebird SES would be safer and more effective than BMS. Firebird SES may be not inferior to Cypher SES in terms of restenosis and MACE.