Drug-Eluting Stents vs. Bare-Metal Stents: The Ontario Experience

Two-year results from a population-based, propensity-matched cohort study suggest that DES are more effective than BMS.

Amid the controversy surrounding the benefits and long-term risks of drug-eluting stents (DES), many groups are reporting their experience with these devices. In this well-designed study, investigators examined data from a prospective clinical registry of all invasive cardiac procedures performed in Ontario during a 16-month period, with essentially complete follow-up. Propensity analysis was used to identify 3751 pairs of DES and bare-metal stent (BMS) recipients matched for 21 factors predictive of target-vessel revascularization (TVR), MI, or death. All patients received clopidogrel for at least 1 year.

Overall, 38% of implanted stents were DES; 83% of which were paclitaxel-eluting. DES recipients were less likely to present with acute MI…

Reviewing Author

Howard C. Herrmann, MD

Disclosures

Consultant/Advisory BoardAffluent Medical; Artedrone; Caranx; Johnson & Johnson; Medtronic; Prolifagen; Wells Fargo

EquityMicrointerventional Devices, Inc.

RoyaltiesUniversity of Pennsylvania

Grant/Research SupportAbbott Vascular; Edwards Lifesciences; Johnson & Johnson; Medtronic

Editorial BoardsCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions; Journal of the American College of Cardiology; Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions; JACC Cardiovascular Interventions; JACC Case Reports; JSCAI