Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Can J Cardiol. 2010 Feb;26(2):e40-4.

Long-term outcomes with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in everyday practice: a Canadian experience.

Author information

1
McMaster University/Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. schwalj@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

In randomized trials, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) are superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing target lesion revascularization (TLR). However, recent reports suggest there may be an increase in late stent thrombosis with long-term follow-up in PES-treated patients.

METHODS:

Prospectively collected data from a regional cardiac referral centre were analyzed to compare PES versus BMS in all consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from April 2003 to March 2004. Outcomes included combined death, myocardial infarction and clinically driven TLR, as well as stent thrombosis at four years follow-up.

RESULTS:

A total of 512 patients were treated with PES and 722 patients with BMS. At four years, there was 92% follow-up in both groups. The composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and TLR was 13.9% in the PES group compared with 20% in the BMS group (P=0.01). This difference was primarily driven by the reduction in TLR in the PES cohort (3.9% versus 8%, P<0.01). The rate of definite stent thrombosis was 1.6% in the PES group compared with 0.4% in the BMS group (P=0.03).

CONCLUSION:

While PES offers an absolute 4.1% reduction in clinically driven TLR at four years, there is an associated increased risk of stent thrombosis. Further long-term studies addressing clinical outcomes including stent thrombosis with PES versus BMS are required to clarify this risk/ benefit balance.

PMID:
20151057
PMCID:
PMC2851390
DOI:
10.1016/s0828-282x(10)70005-2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center