This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bates, E. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bates, E. R. Related Collections Acute coronary syndromes Catheter-based coronary and valvular interventions: other Related Article

Editorials

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents

Another Chapter in the Stent Controversy

Eric R. Bates, MD

From the Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Correspondence to Eric R. Bates, MD, CVC Cardiovascular Medicine, 1500 E Medical Center Drive SPC 5869, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5869. E-mail ebates@umich.edu

Key Words: coronary disease • stents

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction if it can be performed rapidly by an experienced team.¹ Compared with balloon angioplasty, routine bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation decreases risk for target vessel revascularization (TVR) and possibly reduces myocardial reinfarction rates but does not reduce mortality rates.^2,3 Therefore, BMS has become the dominant P-PCI strategy, despite initial concern about increased stent thrombosis rates from delayed healing or inadequate late stent apposition due to initial thrombus trapping. Less established is the role of drug-eluting stents (DES) in P-PCI. DES have the potential to further decrease TVR rates but may increase risk for stent thrombosis. In fact, the risk of stent thrombosis might even be higher in P-PCI than in electively treated patients because of the combination of increased platelet activation, delayed healing, lack of endothelialization, and the proinflammatory and prothrombotic environment in the infarct artery.⁴

Article see p 103

Several relatively small randomized clinical trials have shown inconsistent efficacy for DES over BMS for P-PCI. Three meta-analyses of these trials have concluded that there is no difference in death or myocardial infarction rates, but TVR rates are decreased.^5–7 Variably included were 12 studies that differed in trial design, inclusion criteria, end-point definitions, stent types, duration of clopidogrel treatment, and type of follow-up (angiographic versus clinical). They were limited by sample size and duration of follow-up and usually required angiographic documentation of stent thrombosis, which may have underestimated its true incidence.

In this issue . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Long-Term Outcome After Bare Metal and Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

Neville Kukreja, Yoshinobu Onuma, Hector Garcia-Garcia, Joost Daemen, Ron van Domburg, and Patrick W. Serruys
Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2008 1: 103-110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]