OBJECTIVES: This study compared acute and late outcomes following a strategy of selective drug-eluting stent (DES) use guided by a set of 4 criteria defining higher risk of in-stent restenosis compared to an exclusive DES strategy in 362 patients with multilesion (n = 900) percutaneous coronary interventions. RESULTS: At a mean follow up of 412 +/- 110 days, major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, revascularization) were 16.8% in the exclusive DES group compared to 18.4% in the selective DES group (p = 0.78). By univariate analysis, revascularization rates (9.9% in the exclusive DES group versus 10.5% in the selective DES group; p = 1.0) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates (5.5% versus 6.2%; p = 0.77) were similar in the 2 groups. By multivariate analysis adjusted by propensity score to account for differences in baseline characteristics, the strategy of exclusive DES use was not associated with lower risks of revascularization (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.29) or TLR (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.08) compared with selective DES use. Using the Academic Research Consortium criteria, stent thrombosis occurred in 6/161 (3.7%) cases in the exclusive DES group and in 1/201 (0.5%) case in the selective DES group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multiple coronary lesions, a selective DES strategy for lesions at higher risk of restenosis and bare-metal stents for other lesions was safe and effective when compared to the exclusive use of DES. A large, prospective, randomized trial is required to validate a criteria-based selective DES strategy compared to systematic DES use.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared acute and late outcomes following a strategy of selective drug-eluting stent (DES) use guided by a set of 4 criteria defining higher risk of in-stent restenosis compared to an exclusive DES strategy in 362 patients with multilesion (n = 900) percutaneous coronary interventions. RESULTS: At a mean follow up of 412 +/- 110 days, major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, revascularization) were 16.8% in the exclusive DES group compared to 18.4% in the selective DES group (p = 0.78). By univariate analysis, revascularization rates (9.9% in the exclusive DES group versus 10.5% in the selective DES group; p = 1.0) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates (5.5% versus 6.2%; p = 0.77) were similar in the 2 groups. By multivariate analysis adjusted by propensity score to account for differences in baseline characteristics, the strategy of exclusive DES use was not associated with lower risks of revascularization (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.29) or TLR (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.08) compared with selective DES use. Using the Academic Research Consortium criteria, stent thrombosis occurred in 6/161 (3.7%) cases in the exclusive DES group and in 1/201 (0.5%) case in the selective DES group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multiple coronary lesions, a selective DES strategy for lesions at higher risk of restenosis and bare-metal stents for other lesions was safe and effective when compared to the exclusive use of DES. A large, prospective, randomized trial is required to validate a criteria-based selective DES strategy compared to systematic DES use.