Article

Effect of stent thrombosis on the risk-benefit balance of drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents.

Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, Spain.
Revista Espa de Cardiologia (Impact Factor: 3.2). 05/2010; 63(5):528-35. DOI: 10.1016/S1885-5857(10)70114-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the difference in the risk of stent thrombosis between drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) and to assess the clinical implications.
A retrospective analysis of two cohorts of patients treated at our center with either > or =1 paclitaxeleluting stents (PES) (n=430) or > or =1 BMSs (n=1230) during 2003-2004 was carried out using propensity score methods to compare the adjusted risks of stent thrombosis, instent restenosis, cardiovascular death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and target-lesion revascularization with the two stent types.
After a median follow-up of 46 months, there was a higher risk of stent thrombosis in PESs (hazard ratio [HR]=3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-7.1] though the risk of in-stent restenosis was lower (HR=0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7]. There was no difference in the risk of cardiovascular death, AMI or target-lesion revascularization. With PESs, the risks of target-lesion revascularization (HR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) and in-stent restenosis (HR=0.32; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) were reduced during the first year of follow-up. After this time, the risks of target-lesion revascularization (HR=1.8; 95% CI, 1-3.2) and very late stent thrombosis (HR=12.8; 95% CI, 3-55.1) both increased.
Our findings indicate that the balance of risks and benefits of PESs compared with BMSs is different in the early and late periods after stent implantation. The greatly increased risk of very late stent thrombosis in PESs could cancel out the clinical benefits associated with the reduction in in-stent restenosis observed in PESs relative to BMSs.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
98 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Driven by the complications occurring with bare metal stents (BMSs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs), concerns have been raised over strategies for long-term safety, with respect to preventing or inhibiting stent thrombosis (ST), restenosis and in-stent restenosis (ISR) in particularly. Surface modification is very important in constructing a buffer layer at the interface of the organic and inorganic materials, and in ultimately obtaining long-term biocompatibility. In this review, we summarize the developments in surface modification of implanted cardiovascular metal stents. This review focuses on the modification of metal stents via coating drugs or biomolecules to enhance anti-thrombosis, anti-restenosis and/or endothelialization. In addition, we indicate the probable future work involving the modification of the metallic blood-contacting surfaces of stents and other cardiovascular devices that are under development.
    Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A 03/2013; · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the most reliable evidence, even if they require important resource and logistic efforts. Large, cost-free and real-world datasets may be easily accessed yielding to observational studies, but such analyses often lead to problematic results in the absence of careful methods, especially from a statistic point of view. We aimed to appraise the performance of current multivariable approaches in the estimation of causal treatment and effects in studies focusing on drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods and Results: Pertinent studies published in the literature were searched, selected, abstracted, and appraised for quality and validity features. Six studies with a logistic regression were included, all of them reporting more than 10 events for covariates and different length of follow-up, with an overall low risk of bias. Most of the 15 studies with a Cox proportional hazard analysis had a different follow-up, with less than 10 events for covariates, yielding an overall low or moderate risk of bias. Sixteen studies with propensity score were included: the most frequent method for variable selection was logistic regression, with underlying differences in follow-up and less than 10 events for covariate in most of them. Most frequently, calibration appraisal was not reported in the studies, on the contrary of discrimination appraisal, which was more frequently performed. In seventeen studies with propensity and matching, the latter was most commonly performed with a nearest neighbor-matching algorithm yet without appraisal in most of the studies of calibration or discrimination. Balance was evaluated in 46% of the studies, being obtained for all variables in 48% of them. Conclusions: Better exploitation and methodological appraisal of multivariable analysis is needed to improve the clinical and research impact and reliability of nonrandomized studies. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;**:1-11).
    Journal of Interventional Cardiology 08/2012; · 1.50 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
7 Downloads
Available from
Jun 5, 2014