Safety and Efficacy of Drug-Eluting and Bare Metal Stents: Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies

The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) among more generalized "real-world" patients than those enrolled in pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are controversial. We sought to perform a meta-analysis of DES studies to estimate the relative impact of DES versus bare met...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Circulation (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2009-06, Vol.119 (25), p.3198-3206
Hauptverfasser: KIRTANE, Ajay J, GUPTA, Anuj, PARK, Seung-Jung, PERRY, Raphael, RACZ, Michael, SAIA, Francesco, TU, Jack V, WAKSMAN, Ron, LANSKY, Alexandra J, MEHRAN, Roxana, STONE, Gregg W, IYENGAR, Srinivas, MOSES, Jeffrey W, LEON, Martin B, APPLEGATE, Robert, BRODIE, Bruce, HANNAN, Edward, HARJAI, Kishore, OKKELS JENSEN, Lisette
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) among more generalized "real-world" patients than those enrolled in pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are controversial. We sought to perform a meta-analysis of DES studies to estimate the relative impact of DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) on safety and efficacy end points, particularly for non-Food and Drug Administration-labeled indications. Comparative DES versus BMS studies published or presented through February 2008 with > or =100 total patients and reporting mortality data with cumulative follow-up of > or =1 year were identified. Data were abstracted from studies comparing DES with BMS; original source data were used when available. Data from 9470 patients in 22 RCTs and from 182 901 patients in 34 observational studies were included. RCT and observational data were analyzed separately. In RCTs, DES (compared with BMS) were associated with no detectable differences in overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.15; P=0.72) or myocardial infarction (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.13; P=0.54), with a significant 55% reduction in target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.54; P
ISSN:0009-7322
1524-4539
DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.826479