OBJECTIVETo Compare the efficacy and safety of Rapamycin (Cypher) and Paclitaxel (TAXUS) eluting stents for multi-vessel coronary diseases.

METHODSFrom June 2003 to December 2004, a total of 416 patients with multi-vessel coronary diseases were randomly treated with Rapamycin (n = 210) and Paclitaxel (n = 206) eluting stents. Patients with left main lesion, acute myocardial infarction, revascularization were not included. Acute and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTSBaseline clinical characteristics, including risk factors of coronary heart disease, coronary lesion type, heart function, rates of success and complication of percutaneous coronary intervention procedure in the two groups were comparable. Number of stents implanted was not significantly different between the two groups (3.24 +/- 1.25 vs 3.19 +/- 1.38, P > 0.05). Mean follow-up duration was (19.5 +/- 8.9) months. Follow-up rate (96.2 vs 95.1%), angina pectoris reoccurrence (4.0 vs 6.1%), restenosis (7.1 vs 9.6%), major adverse cardiac event (6.4 vs 8.8%) and event free survival (93.1 vs 91.3%) during follow-up were not significantly different between the two groups. Subacute stent thrombosis rate tended to be higher in Paclitaxel eluting stent group compared with Rapamycin eluting stent group (1.0% vs 0.5%, P > 0.05). At 6 to 9 months angiographic follow-up, the in-stent minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and the in-segment MLD were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONSSatisfactory acute and long term outcomes for patients with multi-vessel coronary disease were achieved by both Cypher and TAXUS stent implantation and the safety and efficacy of the two kinds of stents were comparable.