Key result
Abciximab-coated stents did not significantly reduce the 2-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events compared to bare metal stents (16% vs 24%, p=0.19) in patients with coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
Does abciximab-coated stent implantation reduce the composite of cardiac death, MI, and target lesion/vessel revascularization compared to bare metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=188)
Randomized
No
Does abciximab-coated stent implantation reduce the composite of cardiac death, MI, and target lesion/vessel revascularization compared to bare metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 16% vs 24%
p-value: p=0.19
Abciximab-coated stents safely inhibit neointimal hyperplasia at 6 months but do not significantly improve 2-year clinical outcomes compared to bare metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease.
Abciximab-coated stents warrant no change in practice over bare metal stents; confirms neutral 2-year clinical effect despite early angiographic signals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2010) conducted an RCT in Coronary Artery Disease (n=188). Abciximab-coated stent vs. Bare metal stent was evaluated on Composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction, and need for percutaneous or surgical revascularization of the target lesion or vessel (MACE) (p=0.19). Abciximab-coated stents did not significantly reduce the 2-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events compared to bare metal stents (16% vs 24%, p=0.19) in patients with coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: