ST段抬高心肌梗死应用国产西罗莫司洗脱支架与金属裸支架的对比研究

目的评估在ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)患者应用国产西罗莫司洗脱支架的安全性和有效性。方法将1年内连续入选STEMI的患者随机分为国产西罗莫司洗脱(火鸟)支架组或金属裸支架(BMS)组。对所有患者连续临床随访6个月,术后6个月常规行冠状动脉造影。试验主要终点是术后6个月靶病变区晚期管腔丢失(LLL),次要终点包括支架内血栓发生率和主要心脏不良事件(MACE)。结果试验前6个月共入选85例患者。国产西罗莫司(火鸟)支架组42例,平均年龄58·1岁。BMS组43例,平均年龄59·8岁。两组6个月血管造影随访率分别为47·6%和44·2%。6个月随访结果显示,国产西罗莫司(火鸟)支架组死亡率、靶血管重建率(TVR)和MACE分别为2·4%,0%和2·4%,BMS组相应为4·7%,31·6%和25·6%(P<0·05)。BMS组有1例发生支架内亚急性血栓。定量冠状动脉造影结果显示,国产西罗莫司(火鸟)支架组支架内平均LLL为0·18mm,BMS组为0·72mm。结论与BMS比较,国产西罗莫司(火鸟)支架能够有效降低STEMI患者6个月死亡率、TVR和MACE发生率,其急性或亚急性支架血栓发生率低。     

国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架在老年急性心肌梗死患者中的应用与研究

目的评估老年ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)患者应用国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架(Firebird)和金属裸支架(BMS)的安全性和有效性。方法入选1年中≥60岁的STEMI患者113例,随机分为Firebird组56例,BMS组57例。本研究一级终点是6个月的靶病变晚期管腔丢失,次要终点包括6个月的支架内血栓形成和主要心脏不良事件。结果6个月随访期中,Firebird组和BMS组的6个月造影随访率分别为62.5%和64.9%。Firebird组死亡、靶血管重建、主要心脏不良事件分别为3.6%、3.6%7、.2%;BMS组则分别为3.5%、28.1%、33.3%,两组各有1例亚急性血栓形成。Firebird组和BMS组的平均晚期管腔丢失分别是(0.19±0.33)mm和(0.73±0.73)mm。结论老年STEMI患者应用Firebird比用BMS可降低6个月的靶血管重建和主要心脏不良事件,且急性、亚急性支架内血栓发生率低。     

国产药物洗脱支架对急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者的疗效观察

目的探讨国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架Firebird在急性ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)患者急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中应用的安全性和有效性。方法选择STEMI且在发病12h内接受急诊置入Firebird支架的患者96例,记录住院期间、术后9个月时不良心脏事件(MACE)的发生率。结果96处梗死相关病变置入150枚Firebird支架,支架置入成功率为100%,介入治疗后血流TIMI3级86例(89.6%),无复流现象3例,其中术中死亡1例;心脏破裂死亡2例;早期支架内血栓形成2例,其中死亡1例。住院期间MACE发生率为5.2%(5/96),PCI临床成功率为86.5%(83/96)。对82例患者进行了6～24个月的随访,平均(9.6±3.4)个月,因心力衰竭死亡2例,随访时MACE发生率2.4%(2/82)。结论国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架Firebird在STEMI急诊PCI中应用安全有效。     

不同药物洗脱支架四年临床结果比较

目的 观察雷帕霉素与紫杉醇药物洗脱支架(DES)置入后再狭窄率、支架内血栓形成及4年临床结果.方法 回顾性分析2003年1-10月连续237例置入DES患者6个月再狭窄率与靶病变重建率(TLR)、4年随访主要不良心脏事件(MACE)、靶血管重建(TVR)和支架血栓形成的发生率.结果 雷帕霉素组与紫杉醇组比较,6个月两组TLR、支架内再狭窄、MACE、心肌梗死差异均无统计学意义,但后者有更高的晚期管腔丢失(P=0.022).4年免于TVR生存率分别为88.97%与82.28%(P=0.127),免于MACE生存率分别为83.8%与79.2%(P=0.056).多变量分析每个病变置入支架数(P=0.001)和糖尿病(P=0.001)与TVR相关,多支病变(P=0.0013)和糖尿病(P:0.0001)与MACE相关.4年总的支架内血栓发生率(1.47%与1.98%)无统计学意义,肯定的很可能的和可能的支架内血栓形成两组之间也无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 两种药物洗脱支架均具有较好的安全性和临床近、远期效果,但紫杉醇洗脱支架晚期管腔丢失较多.     

比较不同药物洗脱支架置入后晚期血栓形成的发生率

目的:探讨冠心病患者非选择性病变中即真实世界中(real-world)不同药物洗脱支架(DES)置入后晚期血栓形成的发生率.方法:本研究为单中心DES注册研究,在病变的入选标准上无特殊限制,自2001-12至2008-12共计11352例冠心病患者接受了DES治疗,其中使用雷帕霉素DES(Cypher或Cypher Select支架,美国Cordis公司)3915例(Cypher组),使用紫杉醇DES(TAXUS或TAXUS liberty支架,美国波士顿科技公司)2202例(TAXUS组),使用国产雷帕霉素DES(Fire-bird,中国微创医疗器械有限公司)5235例(Fireblrd组).在上述三种不同的DES中,完成1年临床随访总例数为8626例,其中Cypher组为3012例、TAXUS组为1518例、Firebird组为4096例,完成2年临床随访总例数为5993例,各组例数分别为2187例、1159例、2647例.完成3年临床随访总例数为3378例,各组例数分别为1596例、860例、922例.所有患者PCI术后联合应用阿司匹林与氯吡格雷至少9个月.结果:1年临床随访结果显示晚期血栓发生率在Cypher组、TAXUS组以及Firebird组各自为1.20%,1.25%和0.81%;2年临床随访显示晚期支架内血栓发生率三组分别为1.51%、1.70%、1.02%;3年临床随访显示晚期支架内血栓发生率三组分别1.88、1.86%、1.30%.3组之间各年度比较,其晚期血栓发生率差异均无统计学意义.然而在3组中均可发现,从第一年至第三年间,每年晚期血栓发生率呈递增现象.结论:本研究结果显示应用以上3种DES治疗冠心病无选择性病变均有良好的临床远期疗效,但每年晚期血栓发生率呈递增现象仍应引起高度的重视并提示对于复杂性冠状动脉病变或置入较多支架的患者,双联抗血小板治疗应延长至1年或更长时间为妥.     

国产药物洗脱支架对急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死预后的影响

目的探讨国产药物支架(DES)对急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)预后的影响。方法对2004-03～2009-04共216例确诊为STEMI的患者分为两组,药物支架(DES)组(n=117)和裸支架(BMS)组(n=99),术后长期随访,观察术后12个月随访终点时支架内再狭窄发生率(ISR)及主要心血管不良事件(包括死亡、急性心肌梗死、靶血管再成形等)发生率。结果 216例患者经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗均成功。介入治疗3～12个月后随访结果显示,DES组再狭窄率明显低于BMS组(P0.05),两组心血管不良事件发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 DES在STEMI患者中有较好的安全性及临床疗效,再狭窄率明显低于BMS(P0.05)。     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉小血管病变的疗效分析

目的通过分析比较裸金属支架(BMS)与药物洗脱支架[DES,包括雷帕霉素(Cypher)支架和紫杉醇(TAXUS)支架]治疗冠状动脉小血管病变疗效的差异,为DES治疗多支及单支小血管病变冠心病提供依据。方法连续入选2002年12月至2005年5月沈阳军区总医院首次接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)、靶血管为小血管病变且达到完全血运重建的486例患者,其中多支小血管病变(多支)150例。分为BMS组214例(多支63例)、Cypher组140例(多支46例)和TAXUS组132例(多支41例),对比分析各组患者住院期间及随访6个月的临床情况。结果3组患者冠脉病变特点、PCI成功率及住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率等指标差异均无显著性(P>0·05)。冠脉造影随访显示,两个DES组再狭窄率均明显低于BMS(Cypher组4·9%,TAXUS组7·5%对BMS组29·2%,P<0·05),随访期间MACE发生率亦明显低于BMS(Cypher组2·9%,TAXUS组3·9%对BMS组12·0%,P<0·01)。进一步分析多支小血管病例,发现两个DES组的再狭窄率及随访期间MACE发生率仍然明显低于BMS组(再狭窄率Cypher组6·7%,TAXUS组7·1%对BMS组37·5%,P<0·05;MACE发生率Cypher组4·1%,TAXUS组4·8%对BMS组21·0%,P<0·05)。结论Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗小血管病变安全可行,疗效显著,治疗多支小血管病变可得到相同的疗效。     

药物洗脱支架置入术后不同时期发生支架内血栓患者临床预后的比较

目的:对比药物洗脱支架(DES)置入术后不同时期发生支架内血栓(ST)患者的临床预后。方法:入选2005-01至2015-04我院经冠状动脉造影证实的DES置入术后发生ST患者131例。根据ST发生时间分为早期ST组42例(≤30天)和晚期ST组89例(30天)。收集两组患者住院期间资料及随访结果,对比DES置入术后不同时期发生支架内血栓(ST)患者的临床预后。结果:早期ST组住院期间主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生率高于晚期ST组(16.7%vs 4.5%,P=0.04)。123例患者存活出院,随访时间为中位数38.00(15.00,62.00)个月。Kaplan-Meier分析,两组估测无MACE生存率分别为41.9%和36.3%,差异无统计学意义(P=0.43)。结论:DES置入术后早期发生ST患者住院期间MACE发生率高于晚期发生ST患者,但两组远期预后差异无统计学意义。     

EXCEL支架治疗冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者的临床观察

目的比较国产载雷帕霉素可降解聚合物涂层支架(EXCEL支架)和进口载雷帕霉素涂层支架(CY-PHER支架)在冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者中应用的安全性和临床效果。方法选择2008年6月～2010年2月在我科住院并且行PCI治疗的冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者316例。按植入支架类型分为EXCEL组(120例)和CY-PHER组(196例),对2组患者住院期间,术后30 d及术后1 a的主要心血管不良事件(MACE)和支架内血栓的发生情况进行随访和对比分析。结果住院期间、术后30 d及术后随访1 a期间EXCEL组无急性、亚急性及晚期血栓形成,CYPHER组发生1例亚急性血栓形成。2组MACE的发生率差异均无统计学意义。结论 EXCEL支架应用于冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者,与CYPHER支架一样安全有效,没有增加MACE发生率及支架内血栓形成事件。     

85岁及以上老年冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉支架治疗的临床观察

目的 探讨85～94岁冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉支架治疗的疗效和预后.方法 回顾性分析90例85岁以上冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉支架治疗的临床和造影特点、住院期间和长期疗效.结果 90例中,21例应用金属裸支架(BMS),69例应用药物洗脱支架(DES).三支病变41例,2支病变21例,单支病变28例.手术成功率为94.4%,术前与术后TIMI-3级血流比例分别为72.2%和94.4%.手术相关并发症为15.6%,主要为冠脉夹层(11.1%).住院期间主要心血管不良事件(MACE)为7.8%,其中DES组住院期间MACE为5.8%,BMS组为14.3%.DES组出现2例严重出血.86例患者随访1年时,总的MACE为4.6%,其中DES组为6.0%,BMS组没有任何MACE.DES组出现]例脑卒中和1例严重出血.47例患者随访2年时,总的MACE为14.9%,其中DES组MACE为19.4%,BMS组无任何MACE.DES组1例发生严重出血,BMS组1例发生脑卒中.多因素COX回归分析表明,肌酐水平和高血压是影响长期预后的重要因素.结论 85岁以上冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉支架治疗手术成功牢较高,住院期间和长期的MACE事件发生率较低,并存高血压和严重.肾功能不全的患者MACE的发生率相对较高.     

Clinical results of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with drug eluting stents (DES) versus a matched control group of patients with STEMI treated with bare metal stents (BMS). METHODS: This registry included 122 patients with STEMI undergoing primary coronary angioplasty with DES implantation at our institution. The control group consisted of 506 patients implanted with BMS, who were matched for age, infarct location, and diabetic status. The incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR) and stent thrombosis were assessed up to 12 months. RESULTS: Twelve months follow up showed a non-significant trend towards reduced deaths (3.3% versus 7.1%, P=0.1), significantly reduced recurrent MI (0.0% versus 6.1%, P=0.02), TVR (5.7% versus 15.2%, P=0.006) and TLR (2.5% versus 14.0%, P=0.004) events in the DES group as compared to BMS group. The composite incidences of MACE at 12 months follow-up was lower in the DES group (11.5%) as compared to the BMS group (21.3%, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: According to our experiences, the use of DES in STEMI is safe and effective as compared to BMS. DES was effective in reducing the incidence of restenosis outcomes and overall adverse cardiac events up to 12 months.     

药物洗脱支架在老年急性心肌梗死患者治疗中疗效观察

目的评价药物洗脱支架治疗老年ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死（AMI）患者的安全性和有效性。方法连续性收集2005年1月-12月行直接介入治疗的105例60岁及以上的老年ST段抬高型AMI患者，其中，49例接受药物洗脱支架植入，56例接受金属裸支架植入，对两组患者术后30d和240d的主要心血管不良事件（包括死亡、非致死性再梗死和靶血管血运重建）进行随访、分析。结果药物洗脱支架组和金属裸支架组的手术成功率差异无统计学意义（96％与95％，P〉0．05）。术后30d内，药物洗脱支架组和金属裸支架组的心脏不良事件发生率差异无统计学意义（8、2％与12．5％，P〉0.05），两组由冠状动脉造影证实的早期支架内血栓发生率差异无统计学意义（2．0％与1．8％，P〉0.05）。术后240d随访，与金属裸支架植入比较，药物洗脱支架植入能明显减少心脏不良事件发生率[12．2％与30、0％，相对危险比为0、38，95％可信限（CI）：0、12～0、96，P〈0.053，靶血管血运重建率显著降低[2.0％与25．0％，相对危险比为0．08（95％CI：0．01～0.63），P〈0．01]。术后30～240d，两组未发生晚期支架内血栓。结论与金属裸支架比较，药物洗脱支架应用于老年ST段抬高型AMI患者可能并不增加支架内血栓的中期发生率，同时可以降低患者8个月靶血管再次血运重建率。     

药物支架和裸支架治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者的随访研究

目的 评价药物支架和裸支架治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者疗效和预后方法217例接受了急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者纳入本研究,药物支架组92例、裸支架组125例,收集基线资料并随访6～38个月.结果 裸支架组的平均年龄(64.6±11.9)岁、Killip分级(2、3、4级)为25.9%和支架平均直径为(3.07±0.38)mm,均高于药物支架组(61.2±11.8)岁、12.2%和(2.91±0.40),差异有统计学意义(t=2.09,P=0.037;χ2=5.53,P=0.019;t=2.78,P=0.006),裸支架组平均左心室射血分数(55.4±11.9)%低于药物支架组(60.3±12.8)%,差异有统计学意义(t=-2.57,P=0.011).支架长度[(32.8±16.2)mm、(26.2±11.2)mm]、支架后扩张(45.7%、21.6%)、糖尿病(28.2%、16.0%)药物支架组高于裸支架组(t=-3.54,P=0.001;χ2=13.85,P=0.0002;χ2=4.77,P=0.030).随访期间,主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生36例,药物支架组6例(6.5%),裸支架组30例(24.0%)(χ2=11.70,P＜0.01).结论 急性ST段抬高心肌梗死急诊介入治疗是安全有效的,同裸支架相比药物支架明显降低随访期MACE发生率而改善预后.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

Recently, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the rate of adverse events among selected patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). We present real-world experience from a single center registry evaluating the safety and efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected patients with STEMI using SES. Clinical outcome at 300-day follow-up in two cohorts of 225 consecutive patients who underwent bare metal stent (BMS) (January 2004-February 2005, n = 123) or SES (March 2005-December 2006, n = 102) implantation was examined. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, nonfatal reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). The incidence of short-term MACE was similar between the SES group and BMS group (30-day rate of MACE: 4.9% versus 8.9%, P = 0.30). Angiographically documented stent thrombosis within 30 days after primary PCI was not diagnosed in any patient in the SES group and occurred in 1 patient treated with BMS (0 versus 0.8%, P = 1.0). At 300 days, SES implantation significantly reduced the incidence of MACE (7.8% versus 22.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.71], P = 0.005), mainly due to a marked reduction in the risk of TVR (1.0% versus 17.1%, HR 0.05 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.39], P < 0.001). There was no new onset of documented stent thrombosis between 30 and 300 days in either group. Thus, this real-world registry confirmed the safety and efficacy of SES with remarkably lower rates of TVR and MACE in the setting of primary PCI for unselected patients with STEMI in a real-world scenario.     

Clinical outcomes following drug-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation for lesion subsets excluded from pivotal clinical trials: findings from the GHOST Study (Guthrie Health System Off-Label StenT Study)

Objectives: We assessed outcomes of patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) vs. bare metal stent (BMS) implantation for complex lesions excluded from pivotal clinical trials of DES.
Background: Although DES improve target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to BMS in randomized trials, data on safety and efficacy of DES in complex lesions are insufficient.
Methods: In a single-center registry of 1,354 patients who underwent stent implantation for complex lesions between July 2001 and December 2005, we compared the incidence of death, death or myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis [definite or probable by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria], TVR, and MACE between patients who received DES (n = 483) versus those who received BMS (n = 871). Mean duration of follow-up was 494 versus 838 days in DES and BMS groups, respectively.
Results: Clinical outcomes in DES versus BMS groups were as follows: death 5.2% versus 11.5% (log-rank P = 0.042); death/MI 11.2% versus 16.7% (P = 0.47), stent thrombosis 2.9% versus 2.6% (P = 0.61), TVR 6.6 versus 18.5% (P < 0.0001), MACE 14.9% versus 29.7% (P = 0.0002), respectively. After adjustment for baseline differences, DES implantation was associated with lower TVR (adjusted hazards ratio HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.26–0.56, P < 0.0001) and MACE (HR = 0.56, CI 0.42–0.74, P < 0.0001) without significant impact on other outcomes. In 933 patients who underwent DES (n = 483) or BMS (n = 450) implantation in the year 2003 or later, DES implantation similarly lowered TVR and MACE without affecting other outcomes.
Conclusions: Our findings support the safety and efficacy of DES in patient subsets excluded from pivotal randomized clinical trials of DES.     

Drug-eluting stents are associated with similar cardiovascular outcomes when compared to bare metal stents in the setting of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) as compared to bare metal stents (BMSs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared outcomes among patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who received DES with those who received BMS. METHODS: In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes of a cohort of 122 patients who underwent primary or facilitated PCI and received a BMS were compared to 122 propensity-matched patients who received a DES. Seventy-two patients received sirolimus-eluting stents, and 50 received paclitaxel-eluting stents. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar among groups. One-, 6-, and 12-month outcomes, including reinfarction, death, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were similar among groups. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was 13.3% in the BMS group and 9.2% in the DES group [P=not significant (ns)], recurrent MI was 5.3% in the BMS group vs. 4.4% in the DES group (P=ns), and TVR was 7% in the BMS group vs. 8.7% in the DES group (P=ns). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the general use of DES in the setting of STEMI given similar cardiovascular outcomes among patients receiving BMS or DES, the need for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy with DES, and the possible repercussions of very late stent thrombosis.     

药物洗脱支架与金属裸支架在急性ST段抬高心肌梗死急诊介入治疗中应用长期随访结果的比较

目的 探讨与金属裸支架(BMS)相比,Cypher支架(Cordis公司,美国)在急性ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中应用的安全性和长期有效性.方法 连续选择2002年12月至2005年3月间STEMI患者407例,均于发病12 h内行急诊PCI治疗,于梗死相关血管靶病变置入Cypher支架或BMS.对所有病例随访1.5～4.0年(平均28.7±11.7个月),比较两类支架院内及出院后严重心脏不良事件(MACE,包括死亡、再发心肌梗死、靶病变重建等)发生的差异.结果 407例患者中置入Cypher支架者131例,置入BMS者276例.Cypher支架组所置入支架的直径明显小于BMS组(3.0 mm与3.2 mm,P=0.00).两组在随访期间心因性死亡(1.5%与6.9%,P=0.02)以及随访期间总的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)(6.1%与12.7%,P=0.04)差异均有统计学意义.应用Cox回归比例风险模型计算Cypher支架组在随访期间发生总MACE的相对危险度为0.45(P＜0.05).两组的支架内血栓形成发生率差异无统计学意义,支架内再狭窄发生率以及靶病变重建率差异亦无统计学意义,但Cypher支架较之BMS有明显降低的趋势.结论 在STEMI的急诊PCI治疗时,置入Cypher支架具有较好的安全性和长期有效性,与BMS相比可以降低远期复合MACE以及心因性死亡的发生率. 2)以及随访期间总的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)(6.1%与12.7%,P=0.04)差异均有统计学意义.应用Cox回归比例风险模型计算Cypher支架组在随访期间发生总MACE的相对危险度为0.45(P＜0.05).两组的支架内血栓形成发生率差异无统计学意义,支架内再狭窄发生率以及靶病变重建率 异亦无统计学意义,但Cypher支架较之BMS有明显降低的趋势.结论 在STEMI的急诊PCI治疗时,置人Cypher支架具有较好的安全性和长期有效性,与BMS相比可以降低远期复合MACE以及心因性死亡的发生率. 2)以及随访期间总的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)(6.1%与12.7%,P=0.04)差异均有统计学意义.应用Cox回归比例风险模型计算Cypher支架组在随访期间发生总MACE的相对危险度为0.45(P＜0.     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in ST elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-label Stent (GHOST) Registry

Background: Multiple randomized trials and observational studies have shown drug‐eluting stents (DES) to be safe and effective at 3‐year follow‐up in stent thrombosis (ST)‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, outcomes data beyond 3–4 years after DES implantation are sparse. Methods: We studied 554 STEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with either DES or bare metal stent (BMS). Primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of ST and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary end‐points were time to occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and discrete events that comprise MACE (death, MI, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcomes of the DES and BMS groups were assessed by survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Results: There were 205 (37%) patients who received DES and 349 (63%) patients who received BMS. At a median follow‐up of 41.4 months after PCI, there were no differences in the unadjusted incidence of ST (ST, 3.4 vs. 4.3%, log‐rank P = 0.61) and MI (6.8% vs. 8%, P = 0.61) between DES versus BMS groups, respectively. However, DES implantation was associated with lower unadjusted incidence of death or MI (11% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.0002), MACE (16% vs. 34%, P < 0.0001), death (6.3% vs. 17%, P = 0.0004), and TVR (9.8% vs. 18%, P = 0.008) than BMS implantation. In multivariable analyses, DES implantation was associated with significantly lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR = 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31–0.76], P = 0.0007) than BMS implantation. Conclusion: In our study of STEMI patients, DES implantation was safer than BMS implantation and was associated with lower MACE at long‐term follow‐up. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:118–125)