Comparison of Long-Term Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes Following Implantation of Bare Metal Stents and Drug-Eluting Stents in Aorto-Ostial Lesions

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to aorto-ostial (AO) lesions is technically demanding and associated with high revascularization rates. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes after bare metal stent (BMS) compared to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation after PCI to AO lesions. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of all consecutive patients who underwent PCI to AO lesions at 2 centers. Angiographic and clinical outcomes in 230 patients with DES from September 2000 to December 2009 were compared to a historical control group of 116 patients with BMS. Comparison of the baseline demographics showed more diabetics (32% vs 16%, p = 0.001), lower ejection fractions (52.3 +/- 9.7% vs 55.0 +/- 11.5%, p = 0.022), longer stents (17.55 +/- 7.76 vs 14.37 +/- 5.60 mm, p < 0.001), and smaller final stent minimum luminal diameters (3.43 +/- 0.53 vs 3.66 +/- 0.63 mm, p = 0.001) in the DES versus BMS group. Angiographic follow-up (DES 68%, BMS 66%) showed lower restenosis rates with DES (20% vs 47%, p <0.001). At clinical follow-up, target lesion revascularization rates were lowest with DES (12% vs 27%, p = 0.001). Cox regression analysis with propensity score adjustment for baseline differences suggested that DES were associated with a reduction in target lesion revascularization (hazard ratios 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.52, p <0.001) and major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.79, p = 0.003). There was a nonsignificantly higher incidence of Academic Research Consortium definite and probable stent thrombosis with DES (n = 9 [4%] vs n = 1 [1%], p = 0.131). In conclusion, despite differences in baseline characteristics favoring the BMS group, PCI with DES in AO lesions was associated with improved outcomes, with lower restenosis, revascularization, and major adverse cardiac event rates. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2011;108:1055-1060)