Drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in percutaneous coronary interventions (a meta-analysis)

Abstract

This meta-analysis combined the results of randomized clinical trials to compare the efficacy of drug-eluting stents with that of bare metal stents in percutaneous coronary interventions to ascertain which revascularization strategy is most safe and effective. The literature identified 13 published studies, and 8 were included in the main meta-analysis, thus allowing a meta-analysis on 3,860 patients for the effect on all major adverse clinical events (MACEs) combined and for target vessel revascularization. Meta-analyses were performed for combined MACEs, patient MACEs, and thrombosis. Regression meta-analyses were performed to examine the effect of certain variables on the efficacy of drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents. Meta-analysis of all trials showed that drug-eluting stents produced significant decreases in the need for percutaneous revascularization (relative risk [RR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22 to 0.40) and coronary artery bypass grafting (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.89). Drug-eluting stents significantly decreased all MACEs combined (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.49) but were not associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis or death. These results were confirmed at analysis as stratified by type of eluting stent, because the need for percutaneous revascularization was significantly lower for sirolimus-eluting stents (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.35) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (RR 0.39, 95% CIl 0.29 to 0.53).