BACKGROUND: We sought to establish the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in a usual care setting. METHODS: Using data from a prospective multicentre registry, we compared rates of death and of death or repeat revascularization during 3 years of follow-up of 6440 consecutive patients who underwent angioplasty with either drug-eluting or bare-metal stents between Apr. 1, 2003, and Mar. 31, 2006. RESULTS: Drug-eluting stents were inserted in 1120 patients and bare-metal stents in 5320. The drug-eluting stents were selected for patients who had a greater burden of comorbid illness, including diabetes mellitus (32.8% v. 20.8% in the bare-metal group, p < 0.001) and renal disease (7.4% v. 5.0%, p = 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, the drug-eluting stents were associated with a mortality of 3.0%, as compared with 3.7% with the bare-metal stents (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.83). The rate of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization was 12.0% for the drug-eluting stents and 15.8% for the bare-metal stents (adjusted OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33-0.49). In the subgroup of patients who had acute coronary syndromes, the adjusted OR for this composite outcome was 0.46 (95% CI 0.35-0.61). During the 3 years of observation, the relative risks for death and repeat revascularization varied over time. In year 1, there was an initial period of lower risk in the group with drug-eluting stents than in the group with bare-metal stents; this was followed by a shift toward outcome rates favouring bare-metal stents in years 2 and 3. The adjusted relative risk of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization associated with drug-eluting stents relative to bare-metal stents was 0.73 early in the first year of follow-up; it then rose gradually over time, to a peak of 2.24 at 3 years. INTERPRETATION: Drug-eluting stents are safe and effective in the first year following insertion. Thereafter, the possibility of longer term adverse events cannot be ruled out.
BACKGROUND: We sought to establish the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in a usual care setting. METHODS: Using data from a prospective multicentre registry, we compared rates of death and of death or repeat revascularization during 3 years of follow-up of 6440 consecutive patients who underwent angioplasty with either drug-eluting or bare-metal stents between Apr. 1, 2003, and Mar. 31, 2006. RESULTS: Drug-eluting stents were inserted in 1120 patients and bare-metal stents in 5320. The drug-eluting stents were selected for patients who had a greater burden of comorbid illness, including diabetes mellitus (32.8% v. 20.8% in the bare-metal group, p < 0.001) and renal disease (7.4% v. 5.0%, p = 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, the drug-eluting stents were associated with a mortality of 3.0%, as compared with 3.7% with the bare-metal stents (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.83). The rate of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization was 12.0% for the drug-eluting stents and 15.8% for the bare-metal stents (adjusted OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33-0.49). In the subgroup of patients who had acute coronary syndromes, the adjusted OR for this composite outcome was 0.46 (95% CI 0.35-0.61). During the 3 years of observation, the relative risks for death and repeat revascularization varied over time. In year 1, there was an initial period of lower risk in the group with drug-eluting stents than in the group with bare-metal stents; this was followed by a shift toward outcome rates favouring bare-metal stents in years 2 and 3. The adjusted relative risk of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization associated with drug-eluting stents relative to bare-metal stents was 0.73 early in the first year of follow-up; it then rose gradually over time, to a peak of 2.24 at 3 years. INTERPRETATION: Drug-eluting stents are safe and effective in the first year following insertion. Thereafter, the possibility of longer term adverse events cannot be ruled out.
Authors: M M Graham; P D Faris; W A Ghali; P D Galbraith; C M Norris; J T Badry; L B Mitchell; M J Curtis; M L Knudtson Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Laura Mauri; Treacy S Silbaugh; Pallav Garg; Robert E Wolf; Katya Zelevinsky; Ann Lovett; Manu R Varma; Zheng Zhou; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joachim Schofer; Michael Schlüter; Anthony H Gershlick; William Wijns; Eulogio Garcia; Erick Schampaert; Günter Breithardt Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-10-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marie-Claude Morice; Patrick W Serruys; J Eduardo Sousa; Jean Fajadet; Ernesto Ban Hayashi; Marco Perin; Antonio Colombo; G Schuler; Paul Barragan; Giulio Guagliumi; Ferenc Molnàr; Robert Falotico Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eberhard Grube; Sigmund Silber; Karl Eugen Hauptmann; Ralf Mueller; Lutz Buellesfeld; Ulrich Gerckens; Mary E Russell Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeffrey W Moses; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey J Popma; Peter J Fitzgerald; David R Holmes; Charles O'Shaughnessy; Ronald P Caputo; Dean J Kereiakes; David O Williams; Paul S Teirstein; Judith L Jaeger; Richard E Kuntz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Antonio Colombo; Janusz Drzewiecki; Adrian Banning; Eberhard Grube; Karl Hauptmann; Sigmund Silber; Dariusz Dudek; Stephen Fort; Francois Schiele; Krysztof Zmudka; Giulio Guagliumi; Mary E Russell Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-08-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yana Gurevich; Anne McFarlane; Kathleen Morris; Aleksandra Jokovic; Gail M Peterson; Gregory K Webster Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2010 Aug-Sep Impact factor: 5.223