Financial Disclosure: None.
Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents Compared to Bare Metal Stents following Successful PCI in Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Findings from the Guthrie Health Off-Label StenT (GHOST) Registry
Article first published online: 9 OCT 2011
©2011, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Interventional Cardiology
Volume 25, Issue 1, pages 28–36, February 2012
How to Cite
HARJAI, K. J., SATTUR, S., ORSHAW, P. and BOURA, J. (2012), Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents Compared to Bare Metal Stents following Successful PCI in Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Findings from the Guthrie Health Off-Label StenT (GHOST) Registry. Journal of Interventional Cardiology, 25: 28–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2011.00677.x
Conflict of Interest: None.
- Issue published online: 21 FEB 2012
- Article first published online: 9 OCT 2011
Background: The long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) beyond 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.
Methods: We studied 674 NSTEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with DES (n = 323) or BMS (n = 351). The primary study end-points were time to occurrence of death or nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST). Secondary end-points included time to occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, defined as the composite of death, MI, ST, TVR).
Results: The DES and BMS groups were well matched except that DES patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for a longer duration and had smaller final vessel diameter. In survival analysis, at a mean follow-up of 1333 ± 659 days after PCI, the DES group had similar incidence of death/myocardial infarction (24% vs. 27%, log rank p = 0.23) and ST (4.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.18) as the BMS group. The DES patients had lower incidence of TVR (8.1% vs. 17%, p = 0.0018) but similar MACE (26% vs. 37%, p = 0.31). In multivariable analysis, DES vs. BMS implantation showed no significant impact on death/myocardial infarction [adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 1.0, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.7–1.4], ST (HR 1.7; CI 0.7 – 4.0), or MACE (HR 0.8; CI 0.6 – 1.1). However, TVR was lower in the DES group (HR 0.4; CI 0.3 – 0.7).
Conclusion: In patients presenting with NSTEMI, DES implantation appears to be as safe as BMS implantation at long-term follow-up. In addition, DES are effective in reducing TVR compared to BMS. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:28–36)