Key result
This review examines the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents, specifically addressing concerns about the risk of late stent thrombosis.
Why the study?
Do drug-eluting stents increase the risk of late stent thrombosis compared to bare metal stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions?
Do drug-eluting stents increase the risk of late stent thrombosis compared to bare metal stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions?
This review addresses the ongoing debate regarding the long-term safety and risk of late stent thrombosis associated with drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents.
Long-term DES monitoring for late thrombosis remains prudent; this review leaves open definitive safety comparisons versus BMS.
Drug-eluting stents (DES) in percutaneous coronary interventions significantly reduce rates of restenosis and the need for new revascularizations compared with bare metal stents. However, as the use of DES has increased dramatically, questions have been raised about their long-term safety. Concerns about an increased risk of late stent thrombosis, particularly beyond the first year of treatment, have arisen and have been exacerbated by sparse and conflicting information, and boosted an intense debate between cardiologists. In this article, we reviewed the most recent information to clarify the conundrum of late stent thrombosis and the long-term safety of DES.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saia et al. (2008) conducted a review in percutaneous coronary interventions. Drug-eluting stents (DES) vs. bare metal stents was evaluated on late stent thrombosis and long-term safety. This review examines the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents, specifically addressing concerns about the risk of late stent thrombosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: