Long-term outcomes of patients receiving drug-eluting stents

Background

We sought to establish the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in a usual care setting.

Methods

Using data from a prospective multicentre registry, we compared rates of death and of death or repeat revascularization during 3 years of follow-up of 6440 consecutive patients who underwent angioplasty with either drug-eluting or bare-metal stents between Apr. 1, 2003, and Mar. 31, 2006.

Results

Drug-eluting stents were inserted in 1120 patients and bare-metal stents in 5320. The drug-eluting stents were selected for patients who had a greater burden of comorbid illness, including diabetes mellitus (32.8% v. 20.8% in the bare-metal group, p < 0.001) and renal disease (7.4% v. 5.0%, p = 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, the drug-eluting stents were associated with a mortality of 3.0%, as compared with 3.7% with the bare-metal stents (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46–0.83). The rate of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization was 12.0% for the drug-eluting stents and 15.8% for the bare-metal stents (adjusted OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33–0.49). In the subgroup of patients who had acute coronary syndromes, the adjusted OR for this composite outcome was 0.46 (95% CI 0.35–0.61). During the 3 years of observation, the relative risks for death and repeat revascularization varied over time. In year 1, there was an initial period of lower risk in the group with drug-eluting stents than in the group with bare-metal stents; this was followed by a shift toward outcome rates favouring bare-metal stents in years 2 and 3. The adjusted relative risk of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization associated with drug-eluting stents relative to bare-metal stents was 0.73 early in the first year of follow-up; it then rose gradually over time, to a peak of 2.24 at 3 years.

Interpretation

Drug-eluting stents are safe and effective in the first year following insertion. Thereafter, the possibility of longer term adverse events cannot be ruled out.Drug-eluting stents now comprise at least 85% of stents used in the United States and up to 40% or more of stents elsewhere. The overwhelming worldwide use of drug-eluting stents has, however, been tempered by the cost differential to bare-metal stents, the lack of data on long-term outcomes in large patient populations and, more recently, emerging concerns about safety because of reports of late thrombosis.^1–8The use of stents has been shown to reduce the rates of repeat revascularization and restenosis after angioplasty compared with angioplasty alone.⁹ Despite this, the long-term efficacy of stent use has been limited by the need for repeat revascularization owing to restenosis.¹⁰ Drug-eluting stents were developed to address this problem. Both clinical trials^11–20 and registry data^21–25 have shown reduced rates of restenosis with drug-eluting stents up to 4 years after implantation. This advantage appears to extend to patients with acute coronary syndromes: a recent 2-year follow-up study involving 7217 patients with acute coronary syndromes suggested that rates of death were lower among patients with drug-eluting stents than among those with bare-metal stents.²⁶The possibility of late thrombosis associated with drug-eluting stents is, however, a concern. Rates of late thrombosis have been reported to be 3.6–5.9 events per 1000 patients receiving drug-eluting stents.²⁷ This adverse event has been the subject of a review by the US Food and Drug Administration and has captured the attention of authoritative bodies around the world.Because of concerns about the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents, we compared the rates of death and of death or repeat revascularization over 3 years among patients who received either bare-metal or drug-eluting stents during angioplasty.