• Nilesh J Goswami, Matthew Gaffigan, Gadiel Berrio, Anna L Plessa, Amanda M Pfeiffer, Stephen J Markwell, and Gregory J Mishkel.
• Prairie Heart Institute at St. John's Hospital, Springfield, IL 62794-9420, USA. ngoswami@prairieheart.com
• Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Jan 1; 75 (1): 93-100.

ObjectivesThis study was designed to compare long-term clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease in the "real world."BackgroundThe safety and efficacy of DES versus BMS in SVG remains uncertain due to contradictory reports of either lower revascularization rates with DES; or clinical equivalence to BMS; or even an excess of clinical events associated with DES use.MethodsWe identified consecutive patients who underwent stent placement within a de novo SVG lesion between May 1, 2003 and July 31, 2007. Follow-up was obtained at regular intervals. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to produce actuarial survival estimates. Cox regression analysis was used to predict the risk associated with stent type, and propensity scores were generated to risk-adjust the results.ResultsThe study group included 379 stent recipients (284 DES; 95 BMS) with 410 stented lesions. BMS were placed more frequently in current smokers, acute myocardial infarctions, larger vessels, and longer lesions. In-hospital mortality was higher in BMS recipients than in their DES counterparts (3.2% vs. 0, respectively; P = 0.015). At 3 years, there was no significant difference in clinical adverse event rates between DES and BMS recipients, even after risk adjustment.ConclusionsThree-year adverse event rates are similar among patients treated with DES or BMS in SVG lesions. Therefore, while DES are safe, they do not appear to offer an advantage in terms of long-term graft patency.Copyright 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

46 keywords...

hide…