Display options
Cite
Meraj PM, Jauhar R, Singh A. Bare Metal Stents Versus Drug Eluting Stents: Where Do We Stand in 2015?. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2015;17(8):393doi: 10.1007/s11936-015-0393-y.
Meraj, P. M., Jauhar, R., & Singh, A. (2015). Bare Metal Stents Versus Drug Eluting Stents: Where Do We Stand in 2015?. Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 17(8), 393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-015-0393-y
Meraj, Perwaiz M, et al. "Bare Metal Stents Versus Drug Eluting Stents: Where Do We Stand in 2015?." Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine vol. 17,8 (2015): 393. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-015-0393-y
Meraj PM, Jauhar R, Singh A. Bare Metal Stents Versus Drug Eluting Stents: Where Do We Stand in 2015?. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2015 Aug;17(8):393. doi: 10.1007/s11936-015-0393-y. PMID: 26154294.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2015 Aug;17(8):393. doi: 10.1007/s11936-015-0393-y.

Bare Metal Stents Versus Drug Eluting Stents: Where Do We Stand in 2015?.

Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine

Perwaiz M Meraj, Rajiv Jauhar, Avneet Singh

Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, North Shore LIJ Health System, Hofstra - North Shore LIJ School of Medicine, 300 Community Drive, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA, [email protected].

PMID: 26154294 DOI: 10.1007/s11936-015-0393-y

Abstract

OPINION STATEMENT: The development of bare metal stent (BMS) was a major advancement over plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) in the management of symptomatic coronary artery disease. BMS prevented restenosis by attenuating early arterial recoil and contraction; both seen commonly after POBA. However, the rate of clinically indicated target lesion repeat revascularization due to a process of in-stent restenosis (ISR) at 1 year remained relatively high (10 to 20 %), often due to excessive neointimal growth (Fischman et al. N Engl J Med. 331:496, 1994; Serruys et al. N Engl J Med. 331:489, 1994; Cutlip et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 40:2082, 2002). Stents with drug elution technology (DES) were developed to reduce the relatively high rate of ISR and subsequent repeat revascularization seen with BMS. Clinical trials have confirmed a reduction of as much as 50 to 70 % in target lesion revascularization by DES compared to BMS. These findings have led to the preferential use of DES in the majority of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, as DES require a longer period of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to prevent stent thrombosis, DES are not appropriate for all patients.

References

  1. Circulation. 2012 Jun 12;125(23):2873-91 - PubMed
  2. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Jul 1;82(1):E1-27 - PubMed
  3. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013 Mar;25(3):114-7 - PubMed
  4. Circulation. 2012 Sep 4;126(10 ):1225-36 - PubMed
  5. Lancet. 2011 Sep 17;378(9796):1071-8 - PubMed
  6. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Aug 16;46(4):575-81 - PubMed
  7. EuroIntervention. 2005 Aug;1(2):157-64 - PubMed
  8. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Feb 5;61(5):545-50 - PubMed
  9. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jan;7(1):55-63 - PubMed
  10. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Feb 5;61(5):536-44 - PubMed
  11. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 8;363(2):136-46 - PubMed
  12. JAMA. 2013 Dec 18;310(23):2510-22 - PubMed
  13. N Engl J Med. 1997 Sep 11;337(11):740-7 - PubMed
  14. N Engl J Med. 1984 Nov 22;311(21):1329-32 - PubMed
  15. Lancet. 2013 Nov 23;382(9906):1714-22 - PubMed
  16. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 8;356(10):1009-19 - PubMed
  17. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jan 15;350(3):221-31 - PubMed
  18. N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 25;331(8):496-501 - PubMed
  19. JAMA. 2005 Sep 14;294(10 ):1215-23 - PubMed
  20. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Dec;3(12):1262-73 - PubMed
  21. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Jan;4(1):30-8 - PubMed
  22. N Engl J Med. 2002 Jun 6;346(23 ):1773-80 - PubMed
  23. Lancet. 2014 Feb 1;383(9915):413-23 - PubMed
  24. N Engl J Med. 2005 May 26;352(21):2174-83 - PubMed
  25. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Oct 28;64(17):1825-36 - PubMed
  26. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Aug 18;44(4):766-74 - PubMed
  27. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 8;356(10):998-1008 - PubMed
  28. Int J Cardiol. 2014 Feb 1;171(2):224-30 - PubMed
  29. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Apr 10;59(15):1350-61 - PubMed
  30. Eur Heart J. 2006 Dec;27(23):2784-814 - PubMed
  31. EuroIntervention. 2005 May;1(1):58-65 - PubMed
  32. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Jun;2(6):534-41 - PubMed
  33. Circulation. 2003 Jan 7;107(1):38-42 - PubMed
  34. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Apr 26;57(17):1778-83 - PubMed
  35. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Jul 17;50(3):261-7 - PubMed
  36. Am J Cardiol. 2013 Aug 1;112(3):318-22 - PubMed
  37. N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 25;359(13):1330-42 - PubMed
  38. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Dec 19;48(12):2584-91 - PubMed
  39. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Feb 15;77(3):315-32 - PubMed
  40. Lancet. 2002 Sep 28;360(9338):965-70 - PubMed
  41. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Aug;6(4):378-90 - PubMed
  42. N Engl J Med. 2003 Oct 2;349(14):1315-23 - PubMed
  43. Eur Heart J. 2010 Aug;31(16):2014-20 - PubMed
  44. JAMA. 2008 Apr 23;299(16):1903-13 - PubMed
  45. Circulation. 2006 Aug 29;114(9):921-8 - PubMed
  46. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Jan;4(1):24-9 - PubMed
  47. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Dec 19;48(12):2440-7 - PubMed
  48. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 8;64(1):16-24 - PubMed
  49. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Dec 18;40(12 ):2082-9 - PubMed
  50. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Nov 15;84(6):955-62 - PubMed
  51. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006 Mar;67(3):344-8 - PubMed
  52. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Oct;22(4):1060-7 - PubMed
  53. BMJ. 2012 Aug 10;345:e5170 - PubMed
  54. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 1;63(25 Pt A):2805-16 - PubMed
  55. N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 25;331(8):489-95 - PubMed
  56. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013 Nov;25(11):567-72 - PubMed
  57. Circ J. 2012;76(4):868-75 - PubMed

Publication Types