OBJECTIVES: This study compares outcomes with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: DESs have been effective in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but their safety and efficacy in patients with STEMI have not been well studied. METHODS: The STENT Registry is a multicenter United States registry evaluating outcomes of DES. Our study population includes patients with STEMI treated with either a DES or BMS who completed 9-month or 2-year follow-up. Outcomes were adjusted using propensity score analysis. RESULTS: DES patients were younger, had less prior infarction and prior bypass surgery, but had smaller vessels and longer lesions. After adjusting for differences in baseline variables, there were no significant differences between DES and BMS in death, reinfarction, or major adverse cardiac events (MACE). DES had lower rates of stent thrombosis at 9 months (1.0% vs. 2.7%, HR 0.40 [0.17-0.95]) and lower rates of target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 9 months (4.0% vs. 7.5%, HR 0.55 [0.34-0.88]) and 2 years (8.0% vs. 11.3%, HR 0.57 [0.35-0.92]). There was a nonsignificant increase in stent thrombosis with DES versus BMS from 1 to 2 years (1.1% vs. 0.3%, P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that DES used with primary PCI for STEMI are more effective than BMS in reducing TVR and are safe for up to 2 years. Whether DES are safe beyond 2 years and whether the reduction in TVR is enough to justify their use in STEMI will have to wait for the results of large randomized trials. Copyright 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
OBJECTIVES: This study compares outcomes with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND:DESs have been effective in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but their safety and efficacy in patients with STEMI have not been well studied. METHODS: The STENT Registry is a multicenter United States registry evaluating outcomes of DES. Our study population includes patients with STEMI treated with either a DES or BMS who completed 9-month or 2-year follow-up. Outcomes were adjusted using propensity score analysis. RESULTS: DES patients were younger, had less prior infarction and prior bypass surgery, but had smaller vessels and longer lesions. After adjusting for differences in baseline variables, there were no significant differences between DES and BMS in death, reinfarction, or major adverse cardiac events (MACE). DES had lower rates of stent thrombosis at 9 months (1.0% vs. 2.7%, HR 0.40 [0.17-0.95]) and lower rates of target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 9 months (4.0% vs. 7.5%, HR 0.55 [0.34-0.88]) and 2 years (8.0% vs. 11.3%, HR 0.57 [0.35-0.92]). There was a nonsignificant increase in stent thrombosis with DES versus BMS from 1 to 2 years (1.1% vs. 0.3%, P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that DES used with primary PCI for STEMI are more effective than BMS in reducing TVR and are safe for up to 2 years. Whether DES are safe beyond 2 years and whether the reduction in TVR is enough to justify their use in STEMI will have to wait for the results of large randomized trials. Copyright 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.