+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

5-year follow-up after primary percutaneous coronary intervention with a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a follow-up study of the PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation) trial



5-year follow-up after primary percutaneous coronary intervention with a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a follow-up study of the PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation) trial



Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 4(1): 24-29



The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of the PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation) trial. In primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) is still controversial. Several randomized controlled trials of DES, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), with short-term follow-up showed a reduction in target lesion revascularization (TLR), but no differences in rates of cardiac death or recurrent myocardial infarction. Moreover, the occurrence of (very) late stent thrombosis (ST) continues to be of major concern, and, therefore, long-term follow-up results are needed. We randomly assigned 619 patients presenting with STEMI to a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) or the similar BMS. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or TLR. We performed clinical follow-up at 5 years. At 5 years, the occurrence of the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or TLR was comparable at 18.6% versus 21.8% in PES and BMS, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 1.18, p = 0.28). The incidence of definite or probable ST was 12 (4.2%) in the PES group and 10 (3.4%) in the BMS group (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.51 to 276, p = 0.68). In the present analysis of PES compared with BMS in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events was observed. In addition, no difference in the incidence of definite or probable ST was seen, although very late ST was almost exclusively seen after the use of PES. (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation [PASSION]; ISRCTN65027270).

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 051049515

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 21251625

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.11.003


Related references

Two year follow-up after primary PCI with a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (the PASSION trial): a follow-up study. Eurointervention 4(1): 64-70, 2008

First results of the DEB-AMI (drug eluting balloon in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) trial: a multicenter randomized comparison of drug-eluting balloon plus bare-metal stent versus bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in primary percutaneous coronary intervention with 6-month angiographic, intravascular, functional, and clinical outcomes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 59(25): 2327-2337, 2012

Benefits of drug-eluting stents as compared to bare metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: four year results of the PaclitAxel or Sirolimus-Eluting stent vs bare metal stent in primary angiOplasty (PASEO) randomized trial. American Heart Journal 158(4): E43-E50, 2009

Five-year clinical follow-up from the MISSION! Intervention Study: sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, a randomised controlled trial. Eurointervention 7(9): 1021-1029, 2012

Long-Term outcome of drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare metal stent in Primary Angioplasty (PASEO) Randomized Trial. Circulation 120(11): 964-972, 2009

Sex-specific benefits of sirolimus-eluting stent on long-term outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study trial. American Heart Journal 163(1): 104-111, 2012

Four-year follow-up patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction treated with sirolimus-eluting stent and paclitaxel-eluting stent: Multicenter registry in Asia. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 51(10, Suppl. B): B65, 2008

Maintenance of long-term clinical benefit with sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction 3-year results of the SESAMI (sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in acute myocardial infarction) trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 55(8): 810-814, 2010

Two-year clinical registry follow-up of endothelial progenitor cell capture stent versus sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent versus bare metal stents in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of Interventional Cardiology 23(2): 101-108, 2010

Long-term outcome after drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 3-year follow-up of the randomized DEDICATION (Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction) Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 56(8): 641-645, 2010

Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 380(9852): 1482-1490, 2012

Late-acquired incomplete stent apposition after everolimus-eluting stent versus sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eurointervention 12(8): E979-E986, 2016

Usefulness of preprocedure high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to predict death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis according to stent type in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction randomized to bare metal or drug-eluting stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. American Journal of Cardiology 107(11): 1597-1603, 2011

Drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a word of caution. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 22(4): 159-160, 2010

Tct-556 Differences in neointimal coverage among bare-metal stent, zotarolimus-eluting stent, everolimus-eluting stent and biolimus-eluting stent at 9 months after implantation using optical coherence tomography in patients with St-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 62(18): B167-B168, 2013