AIMS: To conduct a risk-adjusted gender-based analysis of clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent (DES) versus bare metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared risk-adjusted total mortality rate, myocardial infarction, and event-free survival (defined as freedom from death, myocardial infarction and/or repeat revascularisation) in a consecutive cohort of 7,662 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at our institution, including 1,835 (25.4%) women. Follow-up was six months to 6.2 years (mean: 3.5 years; median: 3.6 years). The women were older than men and more likely to suffer from diabetes, hypertension or congestive heart failure. Smokers were more often men, and men were more likely to have had prior coronary bypass surgery compared to women. A DES was used in 39.9% of males and 39.5% of females. Both genders derived a significant long-term clinical benefit from DES compared to BMS; advantages were observed for mortality (men: HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96, p=0.016; women: HR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.85, p=0.003) and major adverse cardiac events (men: HR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.63-0.84, p<0.001; women: HR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.52-0.84, p=0.001). Among BMS-treated patients, women had worse cumulative clinical outcomes than men. DES eliminated the gender differences in cardiac prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicated a profound prognostic advantage for DES versus BMS among both genders, though female patients appeared to derive the greatest benefit.
AIMS: To conduct a risk-adjusted gender-based analysis of clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent (DES) versus bare metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared risk-adjusted total mortality rate, myocardial infarction, and event-free survival (defined as freedom from death, myocardial infarction and/or repeat revascularisation) in a consecutive cohort of 7,662 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at our institution, including 1,835 (25.4%) women. Follow-up was six months to 6.2 years (mean: 3.5 years; median: 3.6 years). The women were older than men and more likely to suffer from diabetes, hypertension or congestive heart failure. Smokers were more often men, and men were more likely to have had prior coronary bypass surgery compared to women. A DES was used in 39.9% of males and 39.5% of females. Both genders derived a significant long-term clinical benefit from DES compared to BMS; advantages were observed for mortality (men: HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96, p=0.016; women: HR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.85, p=0.003) and major adverse cardiac events (men: HR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.63-0.84, p<0.001; women: HR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.52-0.84, p=0.001). Among BMS-treated patients, women had worse cumulative clinical outcomes than men. DES eliminated the gender differences in cardiac prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicated a profound prognostic advantage for DES versus BMS among both genders, though female patients appeared to derive the greatest benefit.
Authors: Eli I Lev; Kevin P Bliden; Young-Hoon Jeong; Shachi Pandya; Kelly Kang; Christopher Franzese; Udaya S Tantry; Paul A Gurbel Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Louise Hougesen Bjerking; Kim Wadt Hansen; Rikke Sørensen; Eva Prescott; Tor Biering-Sørensen; Raban Jeger; Christoph Kaiser; Matthias Pfisterer; Søren Galatius Journal: Open Heart Date: 2019-05-14