Key result
Drug-eluting stents are more effective than bare-metal stents at reducing the rate of restenosis and subsequent need for target vessel revascularization.
DES reduce restenosis versus BMS in PCI; leaves open optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in real-world use.
Patients who undergo intracoronary stent placement during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reduced rates of restenosis and acute vessel closure compared with patients who undergo balloon angioplasty.1 Drug-eluting stents (DESs), such as Cypher (Cordis Corp., Miami Lakes, FL) (sirolimus eluting) and Taxus Express2 (Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, MA) (paclitaxel eluting), are more effective than bare-metal stents (BMSs) at reducing the rate of restenosis and subsequent need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) or repeated PCI procedures.1 The sirolimus-eluting stent was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2003, and the paclitaxel-eluting stent in 2004, after the results of randomized clinical trials demonstrated a significant decrease in restenosis rates in patients who received a DES over a follow-up period of less than one year. Approximately 900 patients were enrolled in the sirolimus-eluting stent trials and 1400 patients in the paclitaxel-eluting stent trials.2,3 In the year following approval of these stents, DESs comprised more than 80% of all intracoronary stents placed for PCI in the United States.2
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spinler et al. (2007) conducted a review in Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Drug-eluting stents vs. Bare-metal stents was evaluated. Drug-eluting stents are more effective than bare-metal stents at reducing the rate of restenosis and subsequent need for target vessel revascularization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: