Why the study?
Do new-generation and old-generation drug-eluting stents reduce stent thrombosis compared to bare metal stents?
Do new-generation and old-generation drug-eluting stents reduce stent thrombosis compared to bare metal stents?
New-generation drug-eluting stents are associated with lower stent thrombosis rates than bare metal stents in the first year, with similar rates beyond one year, supporting their long-term safety.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
n-DES linked to lower early ST and o-DES to higher late ST versus BMS; leaves open whether findings should guide stent choice pending randomized confirmation.
OBJECTIVES: Old-generation drug-eluting coronary stents (o-DES) have despite being safe and effective been associated with an increased propensity of late stent thrombosis (ST). We evaluated ST rates in o-DES, new-generation DES (n-DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) the first year (< 1 year) and beyond 1 year (> 1 year). METHODS: We evaluated all implantations with BMS, o-DES (Cordis Cypher, Boston Scientific Taxus Liberté and Medtronic Endeavor) and n-DES in the Swedish coronary angiography and angioplasty registry (SCAAR) between 1 January 2007 and 8 January 2014 (n = 207 291). All cases of ST (n = 2 268) until 31 December 2014 were analyzed. RESULTS: The overall risk of ST was lower in both n-DES and o-DES compared with BMS up to 1 year (n-DES versus BMS: adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.48 (0.41-0.58) and o-DES versus BMS: 0.56 (0.46-0.67), both p < 0.001). From 1 year after stent implantation and onward, the risk for ST was higher in o-DES compared with BMS [adjusted RR, 1.82 (1.47-2.25], p < 0.001). N-DES were associated with similar low ST rates as BMS from 1 year and onward [adjusted RR 1.21 (0.94-1.56), p = 0.135]. CONCLUSION: New-generation DES were associated with lower ST rates in comparison to BMS during the first-year post-stenting. After 1 year, n-DES and BMS were associated with similar ST rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was a retrospective observational study and as such did not require clinical trial database registration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varenhorst et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: