Are drug-eluting stents safer and more effective than Bare-Metal stents in patients with acute Myocardial Infarction? 3-year follow-up

Abstract

Questions about the long-term safety over the beneficial effects of drug-eluting stents (DES) have grown. We compared the long-term safety and efficacy of DES and bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). A total of 1,017 AMI patients treated with stent implantation were followed for 3 years; 660 (64.9%) patients were treated with at least one DES and 357 (35.1%) patients were treated with at least one BMS. The primary endpoints were total mortality and the composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including total mortality, re-MI, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and coronary artery bypass graft. At 3-years, the overall risks of cardiac and all-cause mortality were not different between the groups. However, the use of DES significantly decreased TLR (17.4% versus 7.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.65) and the composite of MACEs (27.2% versus 19.5%, adjusted HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.87) with no differences in MI. The risk of MACE up to 1 year (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80) was higher in BMS patients, whereas from 1 year to 2 years (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.10) and from 2 years to 3 years (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.28), it was similar between the groups. The use of DES does not have a significant effect on overall long-term clinical survival compared with that of BMS in AMI patients. However, the use of DES reduced the need for re-intervention and the risk of MACE, mostly within 1 year.