BACKGROUNDSeveral clinical trials have shown that rapamycin-eluting stents significantly reduce the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The Firebird stent and the Excel stent (coated with bioabsorbable polymer) are two different types of rapamycin-eluting stents made in China, both have been recently approved for clinical use in China by State Food and Drug Administration. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between the two types of stents in daily practice.

METHODSIn the month of June 2006, a total of 190 consecutive patients were treated exclusively with Firebird stents (n = 93, Firebird group) or Excel stents (n = 97, Excel group) in our center and were included in this study. The frequency of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization), binary restenosis, and late lumen loss and stent thrombosis during a six-month follow-up period were compared between the two groups.

RESULTSPatient and lesion characteristics were comparable between the groups. Major adverse cardiac event rates were low in hospital and at 6 months (2.1% in the Excel group and 0% in the Firebird group, P > 0.05). The 6-month angiographic in-stent restenosis rate was 0% in both groups, with an associated late loss of (0.15 +/- 0.21) mm versus (0.14 +/- 0.20) mm (P = 0.858) and the in-segment restenosis rate was also 0% for the Excel group and the Firebird group. There was no definite stent thrombosis identified in either group during the six-month follow-up period and only one patient in the Excel group had probable stent thrombosis in hospital.

CONCLUSIONSResults from this mid-term, single-center study showed that both of the Firebird and the Excel rapamycin eluting stent had similar effects on reducing the incidence of MACE and the risk of restenosis (both in-stent and in-segment binary restenosis) after PCI in daily practice.