These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 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.
    Author: Harjai KJ, Sattur S, Orshaw P, Boura J.
    Journal: J Interv Cardiol; 2012 Feb; 25(1):28-36. PubMed ID: 21981467.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]