Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Ideas and Opinions |5 February 2008

Balancing Efficacy and Safety of Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Free

Allen Jeremias, MD, MSc; Ajay Kirtane, MD, SM

Allen Jeremias, MD, MSc
From Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, and Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York.

Ajay Kirtane, MD, SM
From Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, and Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York.

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
  • From Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, and Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York.

    Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest:Consultancies: A. Kirtane (Medtronic Vascular). Honoraria: A. Kirtane (Boston Scientific).

    Requests for Single Reprints: Allen Jeremias, MD, MSc, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Health Sciences Center T16-080, Stony Brook, NY 11794; e-mail, allen.jeremias@stonybrook.edu.

    Current Author Addresses: Dr. Jeremias: Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Health Sciences Center T16-080, Stony Brook, NY 11794.

    Dr. Kirtane: Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, 161 Fort Washington Avenue, New York, NY 10032.

×
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
    • Abstract
    • Efficacy of Drug-Eluting Stents
    • Safety of Drug-Eluting Stents
    • Evaluating the Net Clinical Benefit
    • Conclusion
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link
  • CiteULike Link

Abstract

Drug-eluting stents reduce the occurrence of in-stent restenosis and the need for subsequent target vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents. However, the safety of drug-eluting stents has been called into question because of an apparent increase in late stent thrombosis, a frequently fatal event. A substantial body of research has focused on determining the magnitude of these competing events, often reaching contradictory results even with analyses of the same data. Although larger, adequately powered, randomized trials are needed to fully assess the net clinical effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents, the evidence seems to suggest that the net clinical benefit of drug-eluting stents may outweigh their risks. The evidence is clearer that premature discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy is an important trigger for stent thrombosis; therefore, patients who are candidates for implantation of drug-eluting stents should be screened for their ability to receive and tolerate uninterrupted antiplatelet therapy longer than is necessary with bare-metal stents. The evidence suggests that drug-eluting stents relieve obstructive coronary artery disease, provide durable mechanical results, and do more good than harm, but all patients also should be given antiplatelet and other optimal medical therapies to achieve the best outcomes.

Few areas of medicine have evolved as rapidly as coronary artery revascularization procedures. Percutaneous coronary intervention, which began as an experimental procedure, is now performed in more than 1 million patients per year in the United States alone. Drug-eluting stents, which were developed to address the problem of in-stent restenosis with bare-metal stenting, are the most recent addition to the interventional armamentarium. After their approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, drug-eluting stents were so rapidly assimilated that the devices were used in 80% to 90% of revascularization procedures in the United States in 2005. However, reports of an increased incidence of late stent thrombosis, defined as thrombosis occurring more than 30 days after implantation, have raised concerns about a safety tradeoff with this technology and have led to much public debate. We provide a perspective on the benefits and risks of drug-eluting stents, based on current clinical data.

Efficacy of Drug-Eluting Stents

Mechanisms and Pivotal Clinical Trial Data

The principal mechanism of action of the 2 drug-eluting stents currently on the U.S. market is the controlled release (via a polymer carrier on the stent) of an antiproliferative or immunomodulatory compound that accumulates locally and inhibits the proliferative process responsible for restenosis. Initial first-in-man studies demonstrated dramatic suppression of neointimal hyperplasia, and randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents (Table 1) eventually demonstrated 70% or greater reductions in the rate of target lesion revascularization compared with bare-metal stents, an effect that was consistently observed across all patient and lesion subgroups. However, the benefit of drug-eluting stents may have been overestimated because these trials involved routine angiographic follow-up and the use of “thick-strut” bare-metal stents in the bare-metal stent control groups (10).

Table 1. Clinical Events in Pivotal Trials of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents*

Image: 9tt1
Table 1. Clinical Events in Pivotal Trials of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents*

“Off-Label” Use of Drug-Eluting Stents

The pivotal clinical trials were for the most part restricted to low-risk patient and lesion subsets that are not completely representative of those seen in routine clinical practice. Specifically, the “on-label” indications for use of drug-eluting stents include only symptomatic patients with ischemic disease due to a single de novo lesion less than 30 mm in native coronary arteries, with a reference vessel diameter of 2.5 to 3.5 mm. Because the use of bare-metal stents in more complex lesion and patient subgroups is typically associated with higher rates of restenosis, many interventionalists have hypothesized that the efficacy of drug-eluting stents may be more pronounced in this population, with greater absolute reductions in repeated revascularization. Initial data from some of the pivotal randomized studies that included more complex lesion subsets have demonstrated this benefit (8). Additional studies are emerging about the use of drug-eluting stents for various “off-label” indications, including acute myocardial infarction (MI), chronic total occlusion, in-stent restenosis, diffuse disease, saphenous vein grafts, bifurcation lesions, and left main coronary artery stenting. In addition, several ongoing registries have provided “real-world” data that show favorable long-term outcomes and statistically significant reductions in major adverse cardiac events (11).

Safety of Drug-Eluting Stents

Despite the remarkably consistent benefit of drug-eluting stents in the reduction of repeated revascularization, a meta-analysis suggesting a statistically significant 2.4% increased risk for death or MI compared with bare-metal stents (12) has called the safety of these devices into question. Another meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant increase in noncardiac mortality at 2 to 3 years among patients receiving the sirolimus-eluting stent (13). Although both of these analyses were limited to aggregated trial data available from published manuscripts rather than patient-level data and combined varying definitions of end points from the included trials, they received widespread attention for questioning the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents. An initial analysis of an observational registry of Swedish patients reported additional adverse outcomes, indicating an increase in mortality with drug-eluting stents that became apparent 6 months after the procedure (14), and other recent studies have reported the development of coronary aneurysms 6 to 21 months after drug-eluting stent implantation (15).

The Stent Thrombosis Debate

On the basis of the currently available data from clinical trials (2, 7) and registries (16), the overall rate of subacute stent thrombosis, defined as thrombosis occurring 24 hours to 30 days after stent implantation, appears to be similar for bare-metal and drug-eluting stents. However, several studies indicate a small but measurable increase in the rate of late stent thrombosis (thrombosis occurring 30 days to 1 year after stent implantation) in patients receiving drug-eluting stents, with an estimated incidence of 0.2% to 0.5% per year (17). One trial even showed an incidence of late stent thrombosis of 1.4% in the drug-eluting stent group versus 0.8% in the bare-metal stent group (18). Although these rates appear to be unusually high (even in the bare-metal stent group), in the aggregate, these data suggest an increased rate of late stent thrombosis in patients receiving drug-eluting stents.
Patient-level data from the major randomized trials have subsequently been analyzed to specifically address the incidence of stent thrombosis with drug-eluting stents at 4-year follow-up. Overall, the frequency of protocol-defined stent thrombosis did not statistically differ with drug-eluting stents (1.2% for sirolimus-eluting stents versus 0.6% for bare-metal stents [P = 0.20]; 1.3% for paclitaxel-eluting stents versus 0.9% for bare-metal stents [P = 0.30]) (19). However, when very late stent thrombosis events (occurring >1 year after stent implantation) were analyzed separately, an increase in events was observed with sirolimus-eluting stents (5 events vs. 0 events with bare-metal stents; P = 0.025) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (9 events vs. 2 events; P = 0.028). Given the high incidence of death and MI associated with stent thrombosis, the expected mortality and MI rates should in theory be elevated in patients with drug-eluting stents. However, most studies (including meta-analyses of the studies on which these analyses were based) have found no statistically significant difference in death and MI even after years of follow-up (19–21). The question that naturally arises from this ostensible paradox is why the small but measurable increase in late stent thrombosis does not translate into an increased rate of death and MI.

Is Restenosis a Benign Process?

It has been suggested that unlike native coronary artery disease, in which plaque rupture with subsequent thrombus formation can lead to acute MI and death, restenosis due to gradual hyperplasia of neointima cannot result in acute coronary syndromes, and instead is a “stable,” nonfatal condition associated only with recurrent angina and myocardial ischemia. More recent studies have called this hypothesis into question, because approximately 10% of patients with restenosis have acute MI as their presenting symptom (22). Moreover, in this analysis, 8.9% of patients had a totally occluded vessel at angiography (19% of whom presented with ST-segment elevation MI). Nevertheless, MIs associated with restenosis are typically less severe and are therefore less likely to have the same prognostic impact as those related to stent thrombosis.

Varying Definitions of Stent Thrombosis

Another explanation for the lack of an association between possible increases in late stent thrombosis and other end points, such as death or MI, is the way in which stent thromboses were defined in the pivotal randomized trials. In the published analyses of these trials, stent thrombosis events occurring after an intervening revascularization were censored (that is, not counted). For example, if a patient was randomly assigned to a bare-metal stent, developed restenosis that was treated by repeated revascularization, and then developed acute stent thrombosis, the latter was not reported as a protocol-defined event in the trial. This definition allowed the researchers to directly attribute the stent thrombosis event to the index revascularization. However, on an intention-to-treat basis, all events should ideally be attributed to the index revascularization, rather than being censored or otherwise excluded.
The censoring of stent thrombosis events that occur after an intervening revascularization is particularly problematic when one considers that this happened far more frequently with bare-metal stents. This practice is known as “informative censoring,” and in this case it led to substantial underestimation of the rate of stent thrombosis in the bare-metal stent group. Indeed, in an analysis based on a new definition of stent thrombosis proposed by the Academic Research Consortium (Appendix Table 1 and Appendix Table 2) that counted all events regardless of past revascularization, the occurrence of stent thrombosis on an intention-to-treat basis was similar with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents at 4 years of follow-up (Table 2) (23). Even with the inclusion of possible stent thrombosis (which represents the most inclusive definition), the thrombosis rate was almost identical between the 2 groups.

Appendix Table 1. Definition of Stent Thrombosis according to the Academic Research Consortium*

Image: 9tt3
Appendix Table 1. Definition of Stent Thrombosis according to the Academic Research Consortium*

Appendix Table 2. Certainty of Stent Thrombosis Events

Image: 9tt4
Appendix Table 2. Certainty of Stent Thrombosis Events

Table 2. Pooled Data from Pivotal Trials of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents*

Image: 9tt2
Table 2. Pooled Data from Pivotal Trials of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents*

Do We Truly Know the Incidence of Stent Thrombosis with Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents?

Although the incidence of stent thrombosis with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents has been widely discussed in the lay press and in clinical circles over the past year, there are remarkably few data to draw on for this debate. The overall rarity of these events (<2%) makes it very difficult to be definitive about differences between drug-eluting and bare-metal stents when assessing the true relative incidence of these events. For instance, if one were to design an adequately powered clinical trial to demonstrate even a doubling of the stent thrombosis rate with drug-eluting stents, the trial would have to enroll approximately 8000 patients to adequately detect a 50% relative increase (1% absolute increase) in the rate of stent thrombosis, assuming a baseline rate of 2% in the group with bare-metal stents. In comparison, all 9 major randomized trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents enrolled a total of 5261 patients, and thus the available published data remain greatly underpowered to address the comparative stent thrombosis incidence.

Evaluating the Net Clinical Benefit

The net clinical benefit of any medical device or pharmaceutical agent is best characterized by its beneficial properties relative to its adverse effects. When the net effect is being considered, however, the relative clinical benefit must be weighed against the severity of the adverse effects. In the case of drug-eluting stents, the clinical benefit is the relative reduction in revascularization by approximately 50% to 70% across most lesion subsets (translating into an absolute reduction of 5% to 20%, depending on patient and lesion characteristics). This benefit must be weighed against a possible absolute increase in late stent thrombosis by approximately 0.5%, although the CIs around this latter estimate remain wide in the absence of a large number of events. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 restenosis event ranges from 5 to 20, whereas the number needed to harm (causing 1 excess event of stent thrombosis) is 200. Of note, because stent thrombosis is a more dire event than restenosis in general, the directionality and magnitude of the net clinical effect of drug-eluting stents are influenced not only by the number needed to treat or the number needed to harm but also by the differing clinical consequences of each competing risk.
Subgroup analyses from all clinical trials and numerous registries have demonstrated that implantation of drug-eluting stents reduces angiographic and clinical restenosis to a similar extent in all analyzed patient and lesion subgroups (2, 7). In fact, higher-risk patients may experience a greater absolute reduction in revascularization because of their higher baseline risk for restenosis. Given that the rate of serious adverse events (death and MI) has not been demonstrated to differ from that for bare-metal stents (although studies have been underpowered to assess these end points as well), and considering that drug-eluting stents are very effective in the reduction of repeated revascularization, the net clinical benefit of drug-eluting stents appears to be favorable (19–21). A meta-analysis of all randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents (as well as head-to-head trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents) demonstrated similar mortality rates for all groups (24). Nevertheless, certain patient subsets may be well served with the use of a bare-metal stent if either the frequency of restenosis is low or its clinical consequences are limited.
In addition, multiple studies have shown that the single most important predictor of stent thrombosis is the premature discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy, with a dramatic increase in stent thrombosis seen in patients taken off therapy (16). Currently, uninterrupted dual-antiplatelet therapy (typically consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel) is recommended for at least 30 days after implantation of bare-metal stents and for a minimum of 1 year after implantation of drug-eluting stents. Consequently, it is critical that before stent implantation, all patients be evaluated for their ability to continuously receive and tolerate dual antiplatelet therapy (25). Also, all patients should receive optimal medical therapy, including anti-ischemic therapy (such as long-acting metoprolol or isosorbide mononitrate) and aggressive therapy to decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, as either an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention or as an initial strategy in asymptomatic patients or carefully selected patients with symptoms of low-risk stable angina (26).

Conclusion

Numerous studies and registries have demonstrated that when used for “on-label” indications, drug-eluting stents are effective at reducing restenosis and the need for repeated revascularization in all patient subgroups and lesion types, without an increase in late MI or excess mortality. However, there are few overall safety data from adequately controlled trials on the use of drug-eluting stents for “off-label” indications. Larger prospective studies with adequate power to detect small differences in stent thrombosis, MI, and mortality rates are required to address these issues definitively. In the meantime, all patients should undergo rigorous screening before coronary intervention to assess their ability to tolerate uninterrupted dual antiplatelet therapy for a minimum of 3 to 6 months and preferably 1 year, as suggested by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (27). In addition, all patients should receive optimal medical therapy as either an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention or as an initial strategy in asymptomatic patients or carefully selected patients with symptoms of low-risk stable angina (26).

References

  1. Morice
    MC
    Serruys
    PW
    Sousa
    JE
    Fajadet
    J
    Ban Hayashi
    E
    Perin
    M
    et al
    RAVEL Study Group
    A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization.
    N Engl J Med
    2002
    346
    1773
    80
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  2. Moses
    JW
    Leon
    MB
    Popma
    JJ
    Fitzgerald
    PJ
    Holmes
    DR
    O'Shaughnessy
    C
    et al
    SIRIUS Investigators
    Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery.
    N Engl J Med
    2003
    349
    1315
    23
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  3. Schampaert
    E
    Cohen
    EA
    Schlüter
    M
    Reeves
    F
    Traboulsi
    M
    Title
    LM
    et al
    C-SIRIUS Investigators
    The Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries (C-SIRIUS).
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2004
    43
    1110
    5
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  4. Schofer
    J
    Schlüter
    M
    Gershlick
    AH
    Wijns
    W
    Garcia
    E
    Schampaert
    E
    et al
    E-SIRIUS Investigators
    Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS).
    Lancet
    2003
    362
    1093
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  5. Grube
    E
    Silber
    S
    Hauptmann
    KE
    Mueller
    R
    Buellesfeld
    L
    Gerckens
    U
    et al
    TAXUS I: six- and twelve-month results from a randomized, double-blind trial on a slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent for de novo coronary lesions.
    Circulation
    2003
    107
    38
    42
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  6. Colombo
    A
    Drzewiecki
    J
    Banning
    A
    Grube
    E
    Hauptmann
    K
    Silber
    S
    et al
    TAXUS II Study Group
    Randomized study to assess the effectiveness of slow- and moderate-release polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary artery lesions.
    Circulation
    2003
    108
    7
    788
    94
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  7. Stone
    GW
    Ellis
    SG
    Cox
    DA
    Hermiller
    J
    O'Shaughnessy
    C
    Mann
    JT
    et al
    TAXUS-IV Investigators
    A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease.
    N Engl J Med
    2004
    350
    221
    31
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  8. Stone
    GW
    Ellis
    SG
    Cannon
    L
    Mann
    JT
    Greenberg
    JD
    Spriggs
    D
    et al
    TAXUS V Investigators
    Comparison of a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent with a bare metal stent in patients with complex coronary artery disease: a randomized, controlled trial.
    JAMA
    2005
    294
    1215
    23
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  9. Dawkins
    KD
    Grube
    E
    Guagliumi
    G
    Banning
    AP
    Zmudka
    K
    Colombo
    A
    et al
    TAXUS VI Investigators
    Clinical efficacy of polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents in the treatment of complex, long coronary artery lesions from a multicenter, randomized trial: support for the use of drug-eluting stents in contemporary clinical practice.
    Circulation
    2005
    112
    3306
    13
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  10. Tung
    R
    Kaul
    S
    Diamond
    GA
    Shah
    PK
    Narrative review: drug-eluting stents for the management of restenosis: a critical appraisal of the evidence.
    Ann Intern Med
    2006
    144
    913
    9
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  11. Lemos
    PA
    Serruys
    PW
    van Domburg
    RT
    Saia
    F
    Arampatzis
    CA
    Hoye
    A
    et al
    Unrestricted utilization of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with conventional bare stent implantation in the “real world”: the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry.
    Circulation
    2004
    109
    190
    5
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  12. Camenzind E, Steg PG, Wijns W. Stent thrombosis late after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents: a cause for concern. Circulation. 2007;115:1440-55; discussion 1455. [PMID: 17344324]
  13. Nordmann
    AJ
    Briel
    M
    Bucher
    HC
    Mortality in randomized, controlled trials comparing drug-eluting vs. bare metal stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.
    Eur Heart J
    2006
    27
    2784
    814
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  14. Lagerqvist
    B
    James
    SK
    Stenestrand
    U
    Lindback
    J
    Nilsson
    T
    Wallentin
    L
    SCAAR Study Group
    Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden.
    N Engl J Med
    2007
    356
    1009
    19
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  15. Bavry
    AA
    Chiu
    JH
    Jefferson
    BK
    Karha
    J
    Bhatt
    DL
    Ellis
    SG
    et al
    Development of coronary aneurysm after drug-eluting stent implantation [Letter].
    Ann Intern Med
    2007
    146
    230
    2
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  16. Jeremias
    A
    Sylvia
    B
    Bridges
    J
    Kirtane
    AJ
    Bigelow
    B
    Pinto
    DS
    et al
    Stent thrombosis after successful sirolimus-eluting stent implantation.
    Circulation
    2004
    109
    1930
    2
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  17. Urban
    P
    Gershlick
    AH
    Guagliumi
    G
    Guyon
    P
    Lotan
    C
    Schofer
    J
    et al
    e-Cypher Investigators
    Safety of coronary sirolimus-eluting stents in daily clinical practice: one-year follow-up of the e-Cypher registry.
    Circulation
    2006
    113
    1434
    41
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  18. Pfisterer
    M
    Brunner-La Rocca
    HP
    Buser
    PT
    Rickenbacher
    P
    Hunziker
    P
    Mueller
    C
    et al
    BASKET-LATE Investigators
    Late clinical events after clopidogrel discontinuation may limit the benefit of drug-eluting stents: an observational study of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2006
    48
    2584
    91
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  19. Stone
    GW
    Moses
    JW
    Ellis
    SG
    Schofer
    J
    Dawkins
    KD
    Morice
    MC
    et al
    Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents.
    N Engl J Med
    2007
    356
    998
    1008
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  20. Spaulding
    C
    Daemen
    J
    Boersma
    E
    Cutlip
    DE
    Serruys
    PW
    A pooled analysis of data comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents.
    N Engl J Med
    2007
    356
    989
    97
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  21. Kastrati
    A
    Mehilli
    J
    Pache
    J
    Kaiser
    C
    Valgimigli
    M
    Kelbaek
    H
    et al
    Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents.
    N Engl J Med
    2007
    356
    1030
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  22. Chen
    MS
    John
    JM
    Chew
    DP
    Lee
    DS
    Ellis
    SG
    Bhatt
    DL
    Bare metal stent restenosis is not a benign clinical entity.
    Am Heart J
    2006
    151
    1260
    4
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  23. Mauri
    L
    Hsieh
    WH
    Massaro
    JM
    Ho
    KK
    D'Agostino
    R
    Cutlip
    DE
    Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents.
    N Engl J Med
    2007
    356
    1020
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  24. Stettler
    C
    Wandel
    S
    Allemann
    S
    Kastrati
    A
    Morice
    MC
    Schömig
    A
    et al
    Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis.
    Lancet
    2007
    370
    937
    48
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  25. Spertus
    JA
    Kettelkamp
    R
    Vance
    C
    Decker
    C
    Jones
    PG
    Rumsfeld
    JS
    et al
    Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of premature discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy after drug-eluting stent placement: results from the PREMIER registry.
    Circulation
    2006
    113
    2803
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  26. Boden
    WE
    O'Rourke
    RA
    Teo
    KK
    Hartigan
    PM
    Maron
    DJ
    Kostuk
    WJ
    et al
    COURAGE Trial Research Group
    Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease.
    N Engl J Med
    2007
    356
    1503
    16
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  27. Hodgson
    JM
    Stone
    GW
    Michael Lincoff
    A
    Klein
    L
    Walpole
    H
    Bottner
    R
    et al
    Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions
    Late stent thrombosis: considerations and practical advice for the use of drug-eluting stents: a report from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Drug-eluting Stent Task Force.
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
    2007
    69
    327
    33
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed

Table 1. Clinical Events in Pivotal Trials of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents*

Image: 9tt1
Table 1. Clinical Events in Pivotal Trials of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents*

Appendix Table 1. Definition of Stent Thrombosis according to the Academic Research Consortium*

Image: 9tt3
Appendix Table 1. Definition of Stent Thrombosis according to the Academic Research Consortium*

Appendix Table 2. Certainty of Stent Thrombosis Events

Image: 9tt4
Appendix Table 2. Certainty of Stent Thrombosis Events

Table 2. Pooled Data from Pivotal Trials of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents*

Image: 9tt2
Table 2. Pooled Data from Pivotal Trials of Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents*

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

0 Comments

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Jeremias A, Kirtane A. Balancing Efficacy and Safety of Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:234–238. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-3-200802050-00199

Download citation file:

  • RIS (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2018

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(3):234-238.

DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-3-200802050-00199

©
2008 American College of Physicians
40 Citations

Related Articles

PCI with drug-eluting stents reduced revascularizations, but not mortality or MI, compared with bare-metal stents
Annals of Internal Medicine; 165 (10): JC52
Drug-Eluting Stents: Boom or Bust?
Annals of Internal Medicine; 161 (10): 740-741
Coronary Revascularization in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis
Annals of Internal Medicine; 161 (10): 724-732
Narrative Review: Drug-Eluting Stents for the Management of Restenosis: A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence
Annals of Internal Medicine; 144 (12): 913-919
View MoreView Less

Journal Club

PCI with drug-eluting stents reduced revascularizations, but not mortality or MI, compared with bare-metal stents
Annals of Internal Medicine; 165 (10): JC52
Dual antiplatelets for 30 mo after drug-eluting stents reduced stent thrombosis and CV and cerebrovascular events
Annals of Internal Medicine; 162 (6): JC9
PCI using drug-eluting stents had higher mortality than CABG in diabetes and multivessel CAD
Annals of Internal Medicine; 158 (6): JC8
PCI with drug-eluting stents ≤ 12 months before surgery was linked to increased MI and cardiac death after surgery
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (6): JC35
View MoreView Less

Related Topics

Cardiology
Coronary Heart Disease
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Cardiology, Coronary Heart Disease, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Online First RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards

  • Personae Photography Prize
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2018 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×