this issue

previous article in this issue

next article in this issue

Document Details : Title: A long-term comparison of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents for the percutaneous treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions Author(s): F. Colombo , G. Biondi-Zoccai , V. Infantino , P. Omedé , C. Moretti , F. Sciuto , R. Siliquini , S. Chiadò , G.P. Trevi , I. Sheiban Journal: Acta Cardiologica Volume: 64    Issue: 5   Date: 2009    Pages: 583-588 DOI: 10.2143/AC.64.5.2042686 Abstract : Background — After the first exciting results on drug-eluting stents (DES), many concerns have been raised on their potential risk for late stent thrombosis. Whereas DES appear beneficial at early and mid-term for coronary bifurcation lesions, no data are available on their long-term safety in this setting in comparison to bare metal stents (BMS). We thus aimed to appraise the long-term (> 2 years) outcomes of patients with bifurcation lesions treated with DES vs. BMS. Methods — We abstracted baseline, procedural and follow-up data on all patients with bifurcation coronary lesions (both branches with reference vessel diameter > 2.0 mm) treated with stent implantation at our centre. The primary end-point was the long-term (> 2 years) rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, i.e. cardiac death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting and target vessel revascularization). Results — A total of 315 patients and 334 lesions were included, 84.4% treated with DES, and 15.6% treated with BMS. The side branch was stented in 108 cases, according to a provisional T in 76 (22.7%), crushing in 15 (4.5%), V in 14 (4.2%), and culottes in 1 (0.3%). In-hospital MACE occurred in 4 (1.5%) patients of the DES group and 2 (4.1%) of the BMS group (P = 0.22). After 35.8 ± 12.9 months, MACE were 72 (27.1%) vs. 24 (49%), respectively (P = 0.002), with cardiac death in 7 (2.6%) patients vs. 3 (6.1%, P = 0.20), myocardial infarction in 12 (4.5%) vs. 6 (12.2%, P = 0.42), coronary artery bypass grafting in 5 (1.9%) vs. 1 (2%, P = 0.93), target lesion revascularization in 30 (11.3%) vs. 13 (26.5%, P = 0.0042), and target vessel revascularization in 48 (18%) vs. 13 (26.5%, P = 0.16). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 (0.75%) patients in the DES group vs. 1 (2%, P = 0.93) in the BMS group, whereas probable stent thrombosis was adjudicated in 5 (1.9%) vs. 2 (4%, P = 0.93). Conclusion — This cohort study, reporting for the first time on the long-term outlook of patients treated with DES vs. BMS for coronary bifurcation lesions, supports the overall safety and efficacy of DES in comparison to BMS. Specifically, even after several years of follow-up, repeat revascularizations appeared significantly lower with DES, and stent thromboses occurred with equivalent frequency in both DES and BMS groups.