Introduction:

Internationally, the Titan bioactive stent efficacy and safety have been evaluated against second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome. In our field, however, there is not enough information about its short-term or one-year follow-up outcomes when compared with a second-generation drug-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Objective:

To evaluate and compare immediate, in-hospital and one-year use clinical outcomes of the Titan stent versus Endeavor stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Material and methods:

A descriptive, comparative, longitudinal, retrospective, observational study was performed in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction type acute coronary syndrome who were subjected to primary, pharmacoinvasive and rescue angioplasties, using a Titan stent against Endeavor stent. Primary points: major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), death, myocardial infarction, need for target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), cerebrovascular event (CVE) and stent thrombosis. Secondary points: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) usage time.

Results:

256 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were examined from January 2011 to December 2014. They were treated with a Titan bioactive stent (135 patients) or Endeavor stent (121 patients). There were no significant differences related to major adverse cardiac events, death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or cerebrovascular event, either in-hospital or one-year follow-up. More patients were observed in the Killip-Kimball 3-4 classification in Endeavor stent group versus patients in Titan stent group (62.2% versus 42.2%, respectively, p = 0.010). A greater pre-PTCA (Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty) TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) 0-1 flow rate was also observed (90.9% in Endeavor stent group versus 79.3% in Titan stent group, p = 0.010). However, the Titan stent was considerably more used in elderly patients (62.36 ± 12.95 years old versus 57.59 ± 10.42 years old in Endeavor stent group, p = 0.001); in more complex type C lesions (62.4% in Titan stent group versus 40.5% in Endeavor stent group, p = 0.010); and small vessels (28.9% in Titan stent group versus 18.2% in Endeavor stent group, p = 0.045). Target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization rates were similar: 0% versus 2.5%, p = 0.066 and 0% versus 0.8%, p = 0.290, in Titan stent and Endeavor stent groups, respectively. There were no significant differences on the major adverse cardiac events-free survival analysis (Log-rank Mantel-Cox 0.764 test). There were significant differences on dual antiplatelet therapy usage time (6.46 ± 4.11 months in Titan stent group versus 10.98 ± 2.51 months in Endeavor stent group, p ≤ 0.0001).

Conclusions:

There was no superiority registered in use of a second-generation drug-eluting stent such as the Endeavor stent versus Titan bioactive stent (titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stent) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction regarding immediate, in-hospital and one-year follow-up clinical outcomes. The Titan stent seems to be a good choice for this kind of ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in both efficacy and safety against new drug-eluting stents, and it could be used in elderly patients and/or patients with high bleeding risk requiring less time of dual antiplatelet therapy.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in English     · English ( pdf )