Bare-metal stents versus drug-eluting stents in large (>= 3.5 mm) single coronary artery: Angiographic and clinical outcomes at 6 months

Abstract

Background: Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have been shown to dramatically reduce restenosis and improve the rate of event-free survival in large randomized trials, the benefit of DES appears to be limited to restenosis. In large arteries, it is not clear which type of stent is more superior in angiographic and clinical outcomes between DES and bare-metal stents (BMS). We compared the angiographic and clinical outcomes of DES versus BMS in large arteries (>= 3.5 mm). Method: Two hundred and forty patients from March 2002 to March 2007 received stents; 196 patients were treated with DES (44.9% sirolimus-eluting stents; 43.9% paclitaxel-eluting stents; 11.2% zotarolimus-eluting stents) and 44 with cobalt-chromium BMS for single de novo lesions in a large vessel. All subjects received aspirin, clopidogrel, and/or cilostazol as the standard antiplatelet regimen. The angiographic and clinical outcomes were evaluated at 6 months. Results: For the baseline characteristics, there were no significant differences between the DES and BMS groups. In addition, for the initially implanted stent there was no difference in the length, stent diameter, and lesion site between the two groups. After 6 months, the follow-up angiogram showed that in-stent diameter restenosis and late toss was more common with BMS than DES (39 +/- 21% vs. 19 +/- 17%, p=0.007; 1.44 +/- 0.83 mm vs. 0.62 +/- 0.58 mm, p=0.009, respectively). However, the target-lesion revascularization/target-vessel revascularization, and total major adverse cardiac events showed no significant differences between the groups (5.3% vs. 3.6%, p=0.62; 5.3% vs. 4.6%, p=0.86, respectively). Conclusion: The DES and cobalt-chromium BMS placed in large coronary arteries showed equally favorable 6-month clinical outcomes, although the 6-month angiographic results appeared more favorable in the DES group than in the BMS group. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd on behalf of Japanese College of Cardiology.