Comparison of bare metal stents versus drug-eluting stents on clinical decision making in patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention admitted for suspected acute coronary syndrome.

Overview

To determine whether the decreased rate of restenosis observed with drug-eluting stents (DES) has changed the treatment of patients with recurrent symptoms after stent placement, we compared patients hospitalized with presumed cardiac symptoms within 1 year after placement of either a DES or a bare metal stent (BMS). In this retrospective, single-center study, cases were identified from consecutive patients who received a DES from March 2003 to July 2004 or a BMS from August 2001 to June 2002. No differences were noted in the rate of hospitalization, hospitalization for presumed cardiac symptoms, use of coronary angiography in patients hospitalized for presumed cardiac symptoms, or average interval to hospitalization. In contrast, restenosis and the need for additional revascularization procedures were higher in the BMS group. The primary indication for additional revascularization was restenosis in the BMS group and progression of coronary artery disease in the DES group. In the DES group, the need for revascularization was significantly higher in patients with multi- versus single-vessel coronary artery disease (26% vs 7%, p < 0.05). In conclusion, the rate of hospitalization and use of coronary angiography in patients with recurrent symptoms were similar in patients who received a BMS or DES, despite the decreased rates of restenosis and additional revascularization procedures observed with DESs.