Key result
New-generation drug-eluting stents show marked improvement in clinical safety and efficacy compared with bare-metal stents and early-generation DES across a wide spectrum of patients.
Why the study?
Does the use of drug-eluting stents improve clinical safety and efficacy compared to bare-metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing PCI?
Does the use of drug-eluting stents improve clinical safety and efficacy compared to bare-metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing PCI?
New-generation drug-eluting stents demonstrate marked improvements in safety and efficacy over bare-metal stents, prompting a review of whether any clinical indications for bare-metal stents remain.
Further diminishes bare-metal stent indications in PCI; leaves open whether select subgroups retain net benefit.
Drug-eluting stents (DES) are recognized as a breakthrough technology in the treatment of coronary artery disease, primarily due to substantial reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization as compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). During the last decade new DES – with thinner stent struts, novel durable or biodegradable polymer coatings, and new limus antiproliferative agents – have been developed to address the limitations of earlier generation DES. Randomized trials, observational studies and meta-analyses have shown a marked improvement in clinical safety and efficacy with new-generation DES as compared with BMS, as well as early-generation DES, in a wide spectrum of patients. The objective of this article is to review whether there are any indications left for the use of BMS in clinical practice based on available evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stefanini et al. (2015) conducted a review in coronary artery disease. Drug-eluting stents (DES) vs. Bare-metal stents (BMS) was evaluated. New-generation drug-eluting stents show marked improvement in clinical safety and efficacy compared with bare-metal stents and early-generation DES across a wide spectrum of patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: