Article Text


039 Outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs second generation drug-eluting stents: the Milan experience
  1. G L Buchanan,
  2. C Bernelli,
  3. A Ielasi,
  4. M Montorfano,
  5. A Latib,
  6. F Figini,
  7. M Slavich,
  8. F M Sacco,
  9. I Franzoni,
  10. M Carlino,
  11. S Ferrarello,
  12. A Colombo
  1. San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Italy


Background Second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are said to be more safe and effective. Our aim was to assess clinical outcomes following first- vs second-generation DES implantation in patients undergoing unprotected left main (ULMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods All consecutive patients from our single-center prospective registry treated for ULMCA with DES implantation from January 2005 to November 2010 were analysed. The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac event (MACE) defined as all-cause mortality, target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) at clinical follow-up.

Results A total of 179 patients were included: mean age 66.5±12.7 years and 83.2% were male with mean left ventricular ejection fraction 54.6±8.4% and SYNTAX score 23.3±31.2. The median follow-up was 705.5 days (IQR 339.8–1168.0). First-generation DES were used in 53.1% (of which 51.6% were sirolimus and paclitaxel 48.4%) and 46.9% had second-generation DES (85.7% everolimus; 11.9% zotorolimus; 2.4% biolimus). Interestingly, there were more patients with diabetes treated with first-generation (30.5% vs 14.3%; p=0.023). Regarding the procedure, intravascular ultrasound guidance was similar between first and second-generation (respectively 47.4% vs 59.5%; p=0.130). There were more patients in the first-generation group with distal ULMCA disease (82.1% vs 67.9%; p=0.064). At follow-up, there was a significant difference in MACE favouring second-generation (30.5% vs 19.0%; p=0.047), most related to a reduction in the TLR (13.7% vs 4.8%; p=0.026) and TVR (24.2% vs 14.3%; p=0.031). However, there was no difference in all-cause mortality (10.5% vs 7.1%; p=0.138) with a trend for increased cardiovascular mortality in those treated by first-generation (8.4% vs 2.4%; p=0.082). Moreover, there was no difference in definite/probable stent thromboses (5.3% vs 2.4%; p=0.114).

Conclusions Second-generation DES have improved results with regards to MACE at mid-term follow-up, perhaps secondary to patient selection. This needs to be confirmed at longer-term follow-up.

  • Left main coronary artery
  • drug-eluting stents
  • percutaneous coronary intervention

Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.