The clinical outcome of restricting drug-eluting stents to patients at highest risk of restenosis

AIMS: To assess the clinical outcomes of patients where drug eluting stents (DES) were restricted to those at highest risks of restenosis, we compared three different strategies for stent implantation: bare metal stents (BMS) only, DES only and a group where DES use was restricted (RES). METHOD AND RESULTS: Initial comparison was made between BMS only (279 patients, 316 lesions) and DES only (272 patients, 302 lesions). The endpoints of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) [MACE] were assessed at 12 months. The incidence of MACE in the BMS only and DES only groups were 14% and 7% (p=0.002) and TLR was 8% and 1% (p<0.0001). Comparison was then made between these results and a third group where DES was restricted to patients at highest risk of restenosis. The restricted group (RES) comprised 249 patients (271 lesions) of which 53% received DES. RES remained significantly better than BMS, MACE (14% vs. 8%, p=0.02) and TLR (8% vs. 3%, p=0.02). When RES was compared with DES only, there was no significant difference in MACE (8% vs. 7% p=0.42), but there was a significantly lower TLR rate in the DES only group (1% vs. 3% p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of events in patients where DES use was restricted to 53% of patients remains low and this may be an acceptable treatment strategy to reduce costs.6 page(s

Use of drug-eluting stents in Victorian public hospitals

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the pattern of use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in Victorian public hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Prospective study comparing the use of one or more DESs versus bare-metal stents (BMSs) only, in consecutive patients undergoing 2428 PCIs with stent implantation from 1 April 2004 to 31 December 2005 at seven Victorian public hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to current Victorian Department of Human Services guidelines which recommend DES use in patients with high-risk features for restenosis (diabetes, small vessels, long lesions, in-stent restenotic lesions, chronic total occlusions and bifurcation lesions). RESULTS: Of the 2428 PCIs performed, at least one DES was implanted in 1101 (45.3%) and BMSs only were implanted in 1327 (54.7%). In 87.7% (966/1101) of PCI with DESs, there was at least one criterion for high risk of restenosis. DESs were more likely to be used in patients with diabetes (risk ratio [RR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.02-2.97), small vessels (RR, 3.35; 95%CI, 2.35-4.76), long lesions (RR, 3.87; 95% CI, 3.23-4.65), in-stent restenotic lesions (RR, 3.98; 95%CI, 2.67-6.06), chronic total occlusions (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.51-2.88) and bifurcation lesions (RR, 2.23; 95%CI, 1.57-3.17). However, 66.2% (1608/2428) of all PCIs were in patients eligible for DESs according to Victorian guidelines, and in 39.9% (642/1608) of these PCIs, a BMS was used. CONCLUSION: In Victorian public hospitals, DESs have been largely reserved for patients at high risk of restenosis in accordance with Department of Human Services guidelines. However, many patients with high-risk criteria for restenosis did not receive DESs. Greater use of DESs in these patients may improve outcomes by reducing the need for repeat revascularisation.5 page(s