Drug-eluting stents vs bare metal stents for the treatment of large coronary vessels.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Lately drug-eluting stents (DES) have dramatically reduced restenosis rates and need for repeat revascularization in a wide subset of lesion and patients. However, their benefit for the treatment of large vessels (> 3.0 mm) has yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether DES are superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in terms of clinical outcomes for the treatment of large coronary vessels. METHODS: This study assessed the long-term outcomes (cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, and need for repeat intervention in the treated vessel) of patients treated with either a DES (Cypher and Taxus) or a BMS of > or = 3.5 mm in diameter. A total of 250 consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation were clinically followed for 1 year and compared to 250 patients who were treated with BMS. Interventions in the setting of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction and treatment of bypass grafts were excluded. RESULTS: Cypher was the DES deployed in 70.8% of cases. Most of the enrolled patients were men (78%) with single vessel disease (65.6%). The left anterior descending artery was the culprit vessel in 34.2% of cases. Bare metal stent and DES cohorts had equivalent interpolated reference vessel diameter (3.19 +/- 0.3 mm for BMS vs 3.18 +/- 0.2 for DES; P = .1). Lesion was significantly longer in the group treated with DES (13.4 +/- 5.1 mm for BMS group vs 14.3 +/- 3.5 for DES; P = .0018). After 1 year of clinical follow-up, 95.2% of patients treated with DES and 91.2% of the patients who received BMS were free of major events (P = .2). A trend toward higher target-lesion revascularization was noticed in the group treated with BMS (4.8% vs 1.6%; P = .07). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous treatment of large coronary vessels carries a low risk of clinical events irrespective of the type of stent used.