Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Update on Drug-Eluting Stents

  • Coronary Artery Disease (PG Steg, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion Statement

Coronary artery disease remains one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Percutaneous coronary intervention has been shown to be an effective treatment for angina pectoris, although it does not provide any prognostic benefit in stable patients. Drug-eluting stents (DES) have revolutionised the practice of interventional cardiology by permitting the percutaneous treatment of increasingly complex coronary artery lesions, which historically would have only been treated with surgery. There have been concerns with their long-term safety; however, the most recent large meta-analysis appears to suggest that these concerns are no longer a pertinent issue with the newest generation of stents. Consequently, DES are being used in complex patients and lesion types, and clinical data and guideline recommendations support this. New stent designs are also continually being developed, with the aim to further improve the safety profile of these devices. It must, however, be kept in mind that complacency following the impressive result from initial DES studies lead to, amongst others things, sub-optimal and careless stent deployment, and inappropriate patient selection, which may have ultimately contributed to the prior safety concerns. It is vital, therefore, that this is not repeated in light of the reassuring data, or with newer devices. Finally, as stent design improves, it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify meaningful and clinically relevant differences in stent performance without the requirement of a very large, expensive, randomised trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(23):1773–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jeremias A, Kirtane A. Balancing efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(3):234–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Camenzind E, Steg PG, Wijns W. Stent thrombosis late after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents: a cause for concern. Circulation. 2007;115(11):1440–55; discussion 55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lagerqvist B, James SK, Stenestrand U, et al. Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(10):1009–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Farb A, Boam AB. Stent thrombosis redux—the FDA perspective. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(10):984–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Daemen J, Simoons ML, Wijns W, et al. ESC forum on drug eluting stents european heart house, Nice, 27–28 September 2007. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(2):152–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bazell R. Millions face risk from drug-coated stents. Published online 3/1/2007 on NBC News. Website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15816251/ns/health-heart_health/t/millions-face-risk-drug-coated-stents/ - .UCF4tU1mRNI. 2007.

  8. Garg S, Serruys PW. Benefits of and safety concerns associated with drug-eluting coronary stents. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2010;8(3):449–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nordmann AJ, Briel M, Bucher HC. Mortality in randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting vs. bare metal stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(23):2784–814.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pfisterer M, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Buser PT, et al. Late clinical events after clopidogrel discontinuation may limit the benefit of drug-eluting stents: an observational study of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(12):2584–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, et al. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007;370(9591):937–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kastrati A, Dibra A, Spaulding C, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials on drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(22):2706–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Daemen J, Spaulding C, Jacob S, et al. A pooled safety analysis of data comparing paclitaxel-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. Eurointerv. 2007;3:392–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Spaulding C, Daemen J, Boersma E, et al. A pooled analysis of data comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(10):989–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mauri L, Hsieh WH, Massaro JM, et al. Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(10):1020–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stone GW, Moses JW, Ellis SG, et al. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(10):998–1008.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirtane AJ, Gupta A, Iyengar S, et al. Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting and bare metal stents: comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies. Circulation. 2009;119(25):3198–206.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Douglas PS, Brennan JM, Anstrom KJ, et al. Clinical effectiveness of coronary stents in elderly persons: results from 262,700 Medicare patients in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(18):1629–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pinto Slottow TL, Steinberg DH, Roy PK, et al. Observations and outcomes of definite and probable drug-eluting stent thrombosis seen at a single hospital in a four-year period. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102(3):298–303.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. James SK, Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B. The SCAAR-scare in perspective. EuroIntervention. 2009;5(4):501–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wenaweser P, Daemen J, Zwahlen M, et al. Incidence and correlates of drug-eluting stent thrombosis in routine clinical practice. 4-year results from a large 2-institutional cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(14):1134–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Holmes Jr DR, Kereiakes DJ, Garg S, et al. Stent thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(17):1357–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A, et al. Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(1):193–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Garg S, Serruys PW. Coronary stents-current status. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:S1–S42. An in-depth review paper that summarises all data from randomised studies of 1st and 2nd generation DES.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stone GW, Kedhi E, Kereiakes DJ, et al. Differential clinical responses to everolimus-eluting and Paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2011;124(8):893–900. A meta-analysis of everolimus versus paclitaxel stents that demonstrates an important interaction according to diabetic status.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Alazzoni A, Al-Saleh A, Jolly SS. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Thrombosis. 2012;2012:126369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. de Waha A, Dibra A, Byrne RA, et al. Everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(4):371–7. A meta-analysis of everolimus versus sirolimus stents that demonstrates comparable effiacacy between both stents.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fan J, Du H, Yin Y et al. Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with sirolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions - A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol. 2012.

  29. Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;379(9824):1393–402. A large contemporary meta-analysis of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents, demonstrating superior efficacy with DES, and for the first time significant reductions in stent thrombosis with those treated with everolimus-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kolandaivelu K, Swaminathan R, Gibson WJ, et al. Stent thrombogenicity early in high-risk interventional settings is driven by stent design and deployment and protected by polymer-drug coatings. Circulation. 2011;123(13):1400–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012;125(23):2873–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Palmerini T, Kirtane AJ, Serruys PW, et al. Stent thrombosis with everolimus-eluting stents: meta-analysis of comparative randomized controlled trials. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(3):357–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nakazawa G, Otsuka F, Nakano M, et al. The pathology of neoatherosclerosis in human coronary implants bare-metal and drug-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):1314–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Windecker S, Serruys PW, Wandel S, et al. Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9644):1163–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Stefanini GG, Kalesan B, Serruys PW, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9807):1940–8. An important paper reporting the four-year outcomes from the LEADERS study, and which demonstrates a significant reduction in very late stent thrombosis with the biolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer, compared with the permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Stefanini GG, Byrne RA, Serruys PW, et al. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(10):1214–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Barlis P, Regar E, Serruys PW, et al. An optical coherence tomography study of a biodegradable vs. durable polymer-coated limus-eluting stent: a LEADERS trial sub-study. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(2):165–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Gutierrez-Chico JL, Juni P, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Long-term tissue coverage of a biodegradable polylactide polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent: comparative sequential assessment with optical coherence tomography until complete resorption of the polymer. Am Heart J. 2011;162(5):922–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Meredith IT, Verheye S, Dubois CL, et al. Primary endpoint results of the EVOLVE trial: a randomized evaluation of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(15):1362–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Garg S, Serruys PW. Coronary stents: looking forward. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(10 Suppl):S43–78. An in-depth review paper that summarises the development and assessment of new coronary stents..

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Tada N, Virmani R, Grant G, et al. Polymer-free biolimus a9-coated stent demonstrates more sustained intimal inhibition, improved healing, and reduced inflammation compared with a polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting cypher stent in a porcine model. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(2):174–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Massberg S, Byrne RA, Kastrati A, et al. Polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting versus new generation zotarolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: the intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: test efficacy of sirolimus- and probucol-eluting versus zotarolimus-eluting stents (ISAR-TEST 5) Trial. Circulation. 2011;124(5):624–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Onuma Y, Serruys PW, Perkins LE, et al. Intracoronary optical coherence tomography and histology at 1 month and 2, 3, and 4 years after implantation of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in a porcine coronary artery model: an attempt to decipher the human optical coherence tomography images in the ABSORB trial. Circulation. 2010;122(22):2288–300. An important paper that summarises the pre-clinical data of the bioresobable vascular scaffold.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9616):899–907.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Serruys PW, Ormiston JA, Onuma Y, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet. 2009;373(9667):897–910.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Ormiston JA, et al. Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus drug-eluting vascular scaffold for treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: six-month clinical and imaging outcomes. Circulation. 2010;122(22):2301–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Dudek D, et al. Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold for the treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: 12-month clinical and imaging outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(15):1578–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Brugaletta S, Heo JH, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Endothelial-dependent vasomotion in a coronary segment treated by ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold system is related to plaque composition at the time of bioresorption of the polymer: indirect finding of vascular reparative therapy? Eur Heart J. 2012;33(11):1325–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Dudek D, Onuma Y, Ormiston JA, et al. Four-year clinical follow-up of the ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the ABSORB trial. EuroIntervention. 2012;7(9):1060–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nishio S, Kosuga K, Okada M, et al. Long-term (>10 years) clinical outcomes of first-in-man biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents. Paris: Presentation at EuroPCR; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Camenzind E, Wijns W, Mauri L et al. Stent thrombosis and major clinical events at 3 years after zotarolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation: a randomised, multicentre, open-label, controlled trial. The Lancet. 2012. An landmark paper on the safety of coronary stents, and the first study to report stent thrombosis as its primary endpoint.

  52. Iakovou I, Schmidt T, Bonizzoni E, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents. JAMA. 2005;293(17):2126–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Airoldi F, Colombo A, Morici N, et al. Incidence and predictors of drug-eluting stent thrombosis during and after discontinuation of thienopyridine treatment. Circulation. 2007;116(7):745–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Park SJ, Park DW, Kim YH, et al. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(15):1374–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Monti M, et al. Short- versus long-term duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting: a randomized multicenter trial. Circulation. 2012;125(16):2015–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Byrne RA, Schulz S, Mehilli J, et al. Rationale and design of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 6 versus 12 months clopidogrel therapy after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: The Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Safety And EFficacy of 6 Months Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stenting (ISAR-SAFE) study. Am Heart J. 2009;157(4):620–4.e2.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mauri L, Kereiakes DJ, Normand SL, et al. Rationale and design of the dual antiplatelet therapy study, a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial to assess the effectiveness and safety of 12 versus 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in subjects undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with either drug-eluting stent or bare metal stent placement for the treatment of coronary artery lesions. Am Heart J. 2010;160(6):1035–41, 41 e1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2501–55. The European revascularization guidelines—a vital read.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Dewilde W. WOEST: What is the Optimal Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Oral Anticoagulation and Coronary Stenting. Presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 28 August 2012, Munich, Germany. 2012.

  60. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(24):e44–122. The American revascularization guidelines—a vital read.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Win HK, Caldera AE, Maresh K, et al. Clinical outcomes and stent thrombosis following off-label use of drug-eluting stents. JAMA. 2007;297(18):2001–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Brodie BR, Stuckey T, Downey W, et al. Outcomes and complications with off-label use of drug-eluting stents: results from the STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) group. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1(4):405–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Serruys PW, Silber S, Garg S, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(2):136–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. de Boer SP, Lenzen MJ, Oemrawsingh RM, et al. Evaluating the 'all-comers' design: a comparison of participants in two 'all-comers' PCI trials with non-participants. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(17):2161–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garg S, et al. 5-Year Clinical Outcomes of the ARTS II (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study II) of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1093–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(5):432–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Serruys PW, Farooq V, Vranckx P, et al. A global risk approach to identify patients with left main or 3-vessel disease who could safely and efficaciously be treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the SYNTAX Trial at 3 years. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(6):606–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Serruys PW. The 4-year outcomes of the SYNTAX trial. Presentation at European Association of Cardiothoracic Surgeons annual meeting, Lisbon, Portugal on October 2011.

  70. Shiomi H. Comparison of three-year outcome after PCI and CABG stratified by the SYNTAX score in patients with triple vessel coronary artery disease: an observation from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG registry Cohort-2. Presentation at European Society of Cardiology meeting, Paris, Aug 29th 2011.

  71. Weintraub WS, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Weiss JM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1467–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1718–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(5):538–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Buszman PE, Kiesz SR, Bochenek A, et al. Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(5):538–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Ferrante G, Presbitero P, Valgimigli M, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. EuroIntervention. 2011;7(6):738–46. A meta-analysis of randomised studies comparing drug-eluting stents with coronary artery bypass surgery.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Jang JS, Choi KN, Jin HY et al. meta-analysis of three randomized trials and nine observational studies comparing drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2012.

  77. Abizaid A, Kornowski R, Mintz GS, et al. The influence of diabetes mellitus on acute and late clinical outcomes following coronary stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32(3):584–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Outcomes with various drug eluting or bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: mixed treatment comparison analysis of 22 844 patient years of follow-up from randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Stettler C, Allemann S, Wandel S, et al. Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;337:a1331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Kim WJ, Lee SW, Park SW, et al. Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus (ESSENCE-DIABETES): Results From the ESSENCE-DIABETES Trial. Circulation. 2011;124(8):886–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Maeng M, Jensen LO, Tilsted HH, et al. Outcome of sirolimus-eluting versus zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (a SORT OUT III Substudy). Am J Cardiol. 2011;108(9):1232–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Kapur A, Baumbach A, Beatt K et al. CARDia: Coronary Artery Revascularisation in Diabetes Trial. Presentation at the European Society of Cardiology congress, Munich, Germany, August 27th 2012. 2012.

  83. Banning A, Westaby S, Morice MC, et al. Comparison of cardiac surgery and paclitaxel-eluting stents in nondiabetic and diabetic patients with left main and/or 3-vessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1067–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Mack MJ, Banning AP, Serruys PW, et al. Bypass versus drug-eluting stents at three years in SYNTAX patients with diabetes mellitus or metabolic syndrome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(6):2140–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(19):e215–367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2012.

  87. Stone GW, Lansky AJ, Pocock SJ, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(19):1946–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Brar SS, Leon MB, Stone GW, et al. Use of drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(18):1677–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. De Luca G, Dirksen MT, Spaulding C, et al. Drug-eluting vs bare-metal stents in primary angioplasty: a pooled patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(8):611–21; discussion 21–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Kalesan B, Pilgrim T, Heinimann K, et al. Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(8):977–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Sabate M, Cequier A, Iniguez A et al. Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012. The first all-comers STEMI study that used a second-generation DES.

  92. Räber L, Kelbæk H, Ostoijc M, et al. Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;308(8):777–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Hofma SH, Brouwer J, Velders MA, et al. Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: 1-year results of the randomized XAMI (XienceV Stent vs. Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(5):381–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Steg PG, James S, Harrington RA, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes intended for reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial subgroup analysis. Circulation. 2010;122(21):2131–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Montalescot G, Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, et al. Prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (TRITON-TIMI 38): double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9665):723–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, East Lancashire NHS Trust, Haslingden Road, Blackburn, Lancashire, UK, BB2 3HH

    Scot Garg MB ChB, MRCP, PhD

  2. Interventional Cardiology, Ba583a, Thoraxcentre, Erasmus MC, ‘s-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Patrick W. Serruys MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Scot Garg MB ChB, MRCP, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick W. Serruys MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick W. Serruys MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garg, S., Serruys, P.W. An Update on Drug-Eluting Stents. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med 15, 61–78 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-012-0219-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-012-0219-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation