Fundamentos: Este estudo tem o objetivo de comparar os resultados clínicos e angiográficos de pacientes com infarto agudo do miocárdio(IAM) tratados com implante de stent revestido com paclitaxel (SRP) versus stent convencional. Métodos e população do estudo: Um grupo de 30 pacientes com infarto agudo do miocárdio foi tratados com stent revestido com paclitaxel (TaxusTM). Um grupo controle com 30 pacientes foi tratado com stent convencional (Express2 TM).Resultados: Aos 6,9±1,2 meses, não ocorreu morte, reinfarto ou trombose intra-stent. Entretanto, pacientes tratados com stent farmacológico tiveram um risco menor de reintervenção (3.3%% vs. 33.3%; p=0.006). A perda luminal tardia foi de 0.2±0.2 mm no grupo de SRP vs. 0.6±0.6 mm (p=0.03) no controle e a reestenose binária foi de 3.3% (RVP)vs. 33.3%(controle) (p=0.006). O percentual médio de obstrução neointimal em pacientes do grupo farmacológico foi de 4,7%±6,8%. Conclusões: O SRP se mostrou seguro e efetivo aos 7 meses em pacientes com IAM

This study aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with paclitaxel eluting stent (PES) versus conventional stent implantation. Methods and Study Population: A group of 30 patients admitted with AMI was treated with PES (TaxusTM). A control group comprised 30 patients with a similar bare stent (Express IITM). Results: Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar between the PES and control groups. At 6.9±1.2 months, there were no deaths, re-AMI, or stent thrombosis. However, patients treated with PES had a lower risk of repeat revascularization (3.3%% vs. 33.3%; p=0.006). The angiographic late loss was 0.2±0.2 mm vs. 0.6±0.6 mm (p=0.03) and the binary restenosis rate was 3.3% vs. 33.3% (p=0.006) in the PES vs. controls respectively. The average percent neointimal obstruction in patients treated with PES was 4.7±6.8 %. Conclusions: PES appeared safe and effective at 7 months in patients AMI