Impact of atrial fibrillation on clinical outcomes among patients with coronary artery disease undergoing revascularisation with drug-eluting stents

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are major determinants of morbidity and mortality. A combined treatment with antiplatelet agents and vitamin K antagonists limits the risk of stent thrombosis and stroke while increasing the rate of bleeding. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES)

Short- and long-term outcomes of single bare metal stent versus drug eluting stent in nondiabetic patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>This study was aimed to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between single bare metal stent (BMS) and single drug eluting stent (DES) in nondiabetic patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two hundred and thirty-five consecutive patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel were treated with BMS or DES in our hospital from Apr. 2004 to Dec. 2004.</p> <p>The inclusion criteria: a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel, stent diameter ≥ 3.0 mm, stent length ≤ 18 mm, the exclusion criteria: diabetes mellitus, left main trunk disease and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 30%. Of them, there were 150 patients in BMS group and 85 patients in DES group, and the rates of lost to follow up were 6.7% and 1.2% respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>BMS group had lower hypercholesteremia rate (22.0% vs 38.8%) and higher proportion of TIMI grade 0 (12% vs 1.2%) than DES group (all P < 0.05), but both groups had similar stent length (16.16 ± 2.81 mm vs 16.06 ± 2.46 mm) and stent diameter (3.85 ± 3.07 mm vs 3.19 ± 0.24 mm) after procedure, in-segment restenosis rate (0% vs 1.2%) and target lesion revascularization (TLR, 2.0% vs 2.4%) at 6-month follow-up (all P > 0.05). No difference was found in TLR (1.3% vs 1.2%, P = 1.00) and recurrent myocardial infarction (Re-MI) (0% vs 1.2%, P = 0.36), cardiac death (0.7% vs 1.2%, P = 1.00) between 1- and 3-year. So were TLR (6.0% vs 5.9%, P = 0.97), Re-MI (0% vs 2.4%, P = 0.06), cardiac death (2.0% vs 3.5%, P = 0.48) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, 8.7% vs 10.6%, P = 0.63), cardiac death-free cumulative survival (98.7% vs 97.7%, P = 0.56), TLR-free cumulative survival (94.0% vs 94.1%, P = 0.98) and Re-MI-free cumulative survival (100% vs 97.7%, P = 0.06) at 3-year follow-up.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The single BMS has similar efficacy and safety to single DES in nondiabetic patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel at short- and long-term follow-up.</p