SUBJECTS AND METHOD: A prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare two types of stent for the revascularization in 63 patients [Group I (ReoPro®-coated stent):n=32, 53.7±11.8 years, 27 male, and Group II (control stent):n=31, 55.4±12.1 years, 27 male] with AMI. The primary effective end points were major adverse coronary events (MACE):cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent restenosis and late lumen loss at the 1 year clinical and angiographic follow-ups.

RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics and diameters of stenosis and the minimal luminal diameters were no different between the two groups. There was one myocardial infarction and revascularization during the hospital stay in group II. Follow-up coronary angiograms were performed in 71.9 (23/32) and 77.4% (24/31) of groups I and II, respectively. The diameter of stenosis and late loss were significantly lower in group I than group II (19.4±5.1 vs. 34.8±5.9%, p=0.013;and 0.39±0.26 vs. 0.89±0.45 mm;p=0.008, respectively). However, the restenosis rates were no different between the two groups (21.7 vs. 37.5%, p=0.341). One year clinical follow-ups were possible in 98.4% (62/63), and there were two AMI found in group II, but none in group I. The TLR rates and total MACE of group I were relatively lower compared with group II [12.9 (4/31) vs. 29.0% (9/31);p=0.122 and 12.9 (4/31) vs. 35.5% (11/31), p=0.038, respectively].

CONCLUSION: The ReoPro®-coated stent was safe, with no stent thrombosis, and effective in patients with AMI.