Key result
Drug-eluting stents resulted in a similar rate of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years compared to bare-metal stents in patients with STEMI (9.7% vs 8.0%, p=0.062).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of drug eluting stents with bare metal stents in patients presenting with STEMI in a real-world setting.
Does the use of drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents improve clinical outcomes in patients presenting with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Comparison
DES vs BMS
Design
Real world observational cohort study
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Loading...
Similar 2-year MACE with DES versus BMS in STEMI leaves open early safety signals and stent selection in primary PCI.
Cohort (n=1,596)
No
Does the use of drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents improve clinical outcomes in patients presenting with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 9.7% vs 8%
p-value: p=0.062
In a real-world STEMI cohort, DES implantation was associated with higher 1-year MACE and stent thrombosis compared to BMS, but these differences vanished by 2 years, suggesting non-inferiority in the longer term despite early risks in this specific population.
Kaya et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) (n=1,596). Drug-eluting stents vs. Bare-metal stents was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 2 years (p=0.062). Drug-eluting stents resulted in a similar rate of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years compared to bare-metal stents in patients with STEMI (9.7% vs 8.0%, p=0.062).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: