Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Thin-Strut Cobalt-Chromium Stents in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era: Results of the COBALT (Comparison of Bare-Metal Stents in All-Comers' Lesion Treatment) Registry

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background:

Despite widespread penetration of drug-eluting stents (DES) in clinical practice, a relevant percentage of patients with coronary artery disease are still treated with bare-metal stents (BMS). Contemporary BMS, however, are less well investigated and comparative data on clinical outcome are lacking.

Methods and Results:

This single-center registry aimed to assess characteristics and outcome of patients treated with 2 different new-generation cobalt-chromium BMS, the MULTI-LINK VISION and PRO-Kinetic stents. During the study, adopted criteria for BMS selection were: (1) limited compliance to dual antiplatelet therapy, (2) ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) or saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions, and (3) noncomplex lesions located either in the right coronary artery or in the nonproximal segments of the left coronary artery. During a 24-month period 1,176 patients were treated with the VISION (n = 438) or PRO-Kinetic stent (n = 738). Median duration of follow-up was 549.5 and 528.5 days, respectively. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization were numerically lower in the VISION group (10.4 vs. 12.3% and 11.9 vs. 15.2%, P = 0.24 and 0.11). Death (4.1 vs. 4.3%, P = 0.85), MI (2 vs. 2.3%, P = 0.78), and ARC definite stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.84) were similar. By multivariate analysis, variables associated with TLR were SVG interventions (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.26–3.86), total stent length (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.02), and smoking (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.05–2.16).

Conclusion:

In the DES era, the use of last-generation thin-strut BMS in selected patients is associated with acceptable clinical outcome, with similar clinical results for both the MULTI-LINK VISION and PRO-Kinetic stents. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:496–504)

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles