Key result
Systemic oral therapies, such as oral sirolimus plus bare metal stents, demonstrated comparable efficacy and cost savings compared to drug-eluting stents for preventing coronary restenosis.
Why the study?
Do systemic oral agents plus bare metal stents prevent coronary restenosis compared to drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions?
Do systemic oral agents plus bare metal stents prevent coronary restenosis compared to drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions?
Systemic oral therapies combined with bare metal stents may offer a cost-effective alternative to drug-eluting stents for preventing coronary restenosis, avoiding the risks of late stent thrombosis.
Introduction of drug eluting stents (DES) during percutaneous coronary interventions significantly reduces the rate of angiographic restenosis, target lesion and vessel revascularization. In spite of these benefits, other clinical hard end points such as death or myocardial infarction were not reduced and, furthermore, new concerns associated with the presence of late and very late stent thrombosis have been raised. The requirement of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy is another limitation associated with DES. Conversely, in this decade, other options to DES have been simultaneously discussed in observational and randomized studies. Several registries and randomized trials using the systemic approach with anti-inflammatory, immunosuppressive or antiplatelet therapies have been identified and discussed in this manuscript. In spite of all randomized studies with oral therapies in the bare metal stent (BMS) era demonstrating positive reductions in coronary restenosis, this practice has not been introduced clinically. Furthermore, a recent randomized trial comparing oral sirolimus plus BMS versus DES demonstrated that the first approach was cost saving and of comparable efficacy to DES. Conclusive evidence of high incidence of late and very late stent thrombosis with DES, together with clinical limitations for its widespread use, has opened up a large opportunity to search for alternative therapies in coronary restenosis prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alfredo E. Rodríguez (2009) conducted a review in Coronary restenosis. Systemic oral agents vs. Drug eluting stents (DES) was evaluated. Systemic oral therapies, such as oral sirolimus plus bare metal stents, demonstrated comparable efficacy and cost savings compared to drug-eluting stents for preventing coronary restenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: