BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the magnitude of the problem of drug-eluting stent (DES) thrombosis in the Asian population. HYPOTHESIS: We evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes of DES vs bare metal stents (BMS) in Chinese patients. METHODS: From January 2002 to October 2005, 1236 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with DES or BMS coronary stent implantation at our institution. We analyzed major clinical end points like all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: The 3-year cumulative rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction were significantly lower in the DES group (3.4%, 0.9%, 3.6%) when compared with the BMS group (7.5%, 4.4%, 6.2%; P < .05). No significant differences were found in the 3-year cumulative rates for TLR or stent thrombosis when comparing the DES group (8.3%, 1.63%) vs the BMS group (9.6%, 1.6%; P > .05). However, after 1 year, there were 8 episodes of stent thrombosis in the DES group vs 1 episode of stent thrombosis in the BMS group (P = .04). CONCLUSION: Drug-eluting stents are associated with a significant reduction in the 3-year cumulative rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction when compared to BMS. However, there were no significant differences in the cumulative rates of TLR or stent thrombosis at 3 years. Stent thrombosis after 1 year was more common in the DES group, but this did not translate to increased mortality. The suggestion that DES might confer a mortality benefit should be interpreted with caution as there could be several confounding factors that were not identified in our study.
BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the magnitude of the problem of drug-eluting stent (DES) thrombosis in the Asian population. HYPOTHESIS: We evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes of DES vs bare metal stents (BMS) in Chinese patients. METHODS: From January 2002 to October 2005, 1236 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with DES or BMS coronary stent implantation at our institution. We analyzed major clinical end points like all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: The 3-year cumulative rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction were significantly lower in the DES group (3.4%, 0.9%, 3.6%) when compared with the BMS group (7.5%, 4.4%, 6.2%; P < .05). No significant differences were found in the 3-year cumulative rates for TLR or stent thrombosis when comparing the DES group (8.3%, 1.63%) vs the BMS group (9.6%, 1.6%; P > .05). However, after 1 year, there were 8 episodes of stent thrombosis in the DES group vs 1 episode of stent thrombosis in the BMS group (P = .04). CONCLUSION: Drug-eluting stents are associated with a significant reduction in the 3-year cumulative rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction when compared to BMS. However, there were no significant differences in the cumulative rates of TLR or stent thrombosis at 3 years. Stent thrombosis after 1 year was more common in the DES group, but this did not translate to increased mortality. The suggestion that DES might confer a mortality benefit should be interpreted with caution as there could be several confounding factors that were not identified in our study.