Clinical Data Support the Use of Drug-Eluting Stents

A team of heart disease researchers has analyzed the available clinical data comparing the effectiveness and inherent dangers of drug-eluting stents to those of the bare-metal variety.

After their approval by the [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration, drug-eluting stents became so popular that the devices were used in 80-90% 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, raised concerns about a safety tradeoff with this technology and have led to much public debate.

In the current review article, Dr. Allen Jeremias, assistant professor of medicine at Stony Brook University Medical Center (New York, USA), and Dr. Ajay Kirtane, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University Medical Center (New York, NY, USA), analyzed current clinical data to provide a perspective on the benefits and risks of drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents.

Their report, which appeared in the December 18, 2007, online edition of the Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded that drug-eluting stents relieved obstructive coronary artery disease, provided durable mechanical results, and did more good than harm. Furthermore, the report stressed that all patients should be given antiplatelet and other optimal medical therapies to achieve the best outcomes.

Senior author Dr. Jeremias said, "There appears to be a slightly higher risk with drug-eluting stents, namely late stent thrombosis, but our analysis of the clinical evidence suggests that the net clinical benefit of drug-eluting stents may outweigh their risks.”


Related Links:
Stony Brook University Medical Center
Columbia University Medical Center