Author + information
The use of Drug-eluting stents (DES) is effective compared to the use of Bare-metal stents (BMS) only in the prevention of restenosis. In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, the superiority of the DES use in the cardiovascular outcomes is conflicting.
We retrospectively compared BMS and DES in primary coronary intervention for patients with ACS admitted to 2 institutions between January 2013 and July 2014.
We consecutively included 158 patients treated with BMS and 160 patients treated with DES. The background of ACS patients was not different except for previous myocardial infarction (MI) (BMS: 7.0% vs. DES: 15.6%; p<0.02) and types of ACS (unstable angina, non-ST elevation MI, ST elevation MI).
Used stent size and length were significantly larger (BMS: 3.27 ± 0.4 mm vs. DES: 2.87 ± 0.03 mm; p<0.01) and shorter (BMS: 17.1 ± 0.4 mm vs. DES: 20.9 ± 0.5 mm; p<0.01) in the BMS-treated group than the DES-treated group. During the follow-up period (9.9 months), there were no significant differences in the target lesion failure (BMS: 10.8% vs. DES: 9.4%; p=0.33).
In ACS patients, there were no significant differences those receiving BMS and those receiving DES in the outcome of death and MI. The use of DES could not be proven to have superiority in primary coronary intervention for patients with ACS, and then the use of BMS is still a useful option.