Welcome to Medivizor!

You're browsing our sample library. Feel free to continue browsing. You can also sign up for free to receive medical information specific to your situation.

Posted by on Mar 16, 2014 in Coronary artery disease | 0 comments

In a nutshell

This study compared the safety and efficacy of bare-metal stents, first-generation drug-eluting stents, and newer drug-eluting stents.

Some background

Patients with coronary artery disease often experience a narrowing or blockage of the arteries, which can be treated by placing small tubes (stents), inside the arteries to keep them open, allowing blood to flow easily. Stents were originally bare metal, but in recent years drug-eluting stents have come into use. These stents are coated with medications, such as sirolimus or paclitaxel, which help to keep the artery from becoming blocked again. However, drug-eluting stents are associated with higher rates of stent thrombosis (the formation of a blood clot that then blocks the artery). One possible cause is the coating used to contain the drug, which may lead to inflammation and delayed healing. Newer drug-eluting stents have incorporated bioabsorbable coatings, meaning they can be absorbed by the body, as well as newer drug treatments, such as cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EE), in an attempt to decrease the rate of stent thrombosis. The current analysis examines the outcomes of previous studies comparing the safety and efficacy of these newer stents to the earlier drug-eluting and bare metal stents.

Methods & findings

This analysis reviewed 89 studies, including 85,490 patients, who received bare metal stents, sirolimus-eluting stents, paclitaxel-eluting stents, CoCr-EE stents, or bioabsorbable stents. Mortality, myocardial infarction (heart attack), the need for revascularization (re-stenting), and stent thrombosis rates were measured after 1 year, and then beyond 1 year.

Results showed that there was no difference among the different stents in 1-year mortality rates. Bioabsorbable stents were associated with a 30% decrease in myocardial infarction rates and a 70% decrease in the need for re-stenting compared to bare metal stents. However, bioabsorbable stents were more than twice as likely to lead to stent thrombosis as were CoCr-EE stents. 

There were no significant differences in long-term mortality rates among the different types of stents. However, beyond 1-year paclitaxel– and sirolimus-eluting stents had higher rates of stent thrombosis compared to bare metal, bioabsorbable, or CoCr-EE stents.

The bottom line

This study concluded that bioabsorbable stents were superior to bare metal stents and early drug-eluting stents (paclitaxel and sirolimus) in decreasing the rates of myocardial infarction and the need for revascularization. However, the newer drug-eluting stents, such as the cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents, were associated with lower rates of late stent thrombosis.
 
Published By :

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Date :

Oct 22, 2013

Original Title :

Clinical Outcomes with Bioabsorbable Polymer-based versus Durable Polymer-based Drug-Eluting Stents and Bare Metal Stents: Evidence from a Comprehensive Network Meta-analysis.

click here to get personalized updates