Background: It has been pronounced that everolimus-eluting stent (EES) had lower charge of goal-lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis as compared with sirolimus-eluting STENTS (SES). The goal of this observation was to compare the efficacy and protection of EES with SES in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of 404 patients with coronary artery stenosis who underwent angioplasty of one or more coronary arteries were included in the study. Of these, 202 were treated with SES and the others with EES. The data were collected by a questionnaire through which the annual incidence of coronary stent complications including the occurrence of stent thrombosis (confirmed by re-angiography), the occurrence of acute coronary syndrome leading to hospitalization, the occurrence of vascular myocardial infarction related to the stenting vessel, the need for re-angiography and angioplasty and finally the incidence of cardiac mortality were evaluated. Results: This study showed that the odds ratio of EES thrombosis to SES stent in the unadjusted model is 1. 01 (0. 06-16. 34) and in the adjusted model for confounding variables was equal to 0. 80 (0. 04-13. 35) which in both models, these values were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The findings of the present study indicate that there is no statistically significant difference between the outcomes in the two groups treated with SES and EES release STENTS.

Background: The biolimus-eluting stent (BES), with a biodegradable polymer, has not been previously compared with the everolimus-eluting stent (EES), as a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES).We sought to compare the 1-year outcome between the PROMUS™ stent (EES type) and the BioMatrix™ stent (BES type).Methods: From March 2008 to September 2011, all patients treated with the PROMUS™ stent or the Bio Matrix™ stent for coronary artery stenosis at Tehran Heart Center were enrolled. The primary end points were 1-year adverse events, comprising death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization. The secondary end point was stent thrombosis. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the adjusted association between the stent type and the follow-up outcome.Results: From 949 patients (66.3% male, mean age=59.48 ± 10.46 y) with 1, 018 treated lesions, 591 patients (630 lesions, 65.1% male, mean age=59.24 ± 10.23 y) received the PROMUS™stent and 358 patients (388 lesions, 68.2% male, mean age=59.88 ± 10.83 y) were treated with the BioMatrix™stent. Before adjustment, the rate of the primary end points was 3.2% and 3.4% in the EES and BES, respectively (p value=0.925, HR (EES to BES) =1.035, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.13). The rate of stent thrombosis was 2% and 1.7% in the EES and BES, respectively (p value=0.698). After adjustment on confounder variables, there was no statistically significant difference in major adverse cardiac events between the PROMUS™ stent and the Bio Matrix™ stent (p value=0.598, HR (EES to BES) =0.817, 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.73). Conclusion: At 1 year’s follow-up, the BES and EES showed similar safety and efficacy rates in the patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a relatively low rate of adverse events in the 2 groups.