Does stenting save lives? Understanding the strengths and limitations of meta-analysis

Comparison of long-term (seven year) outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization with versus without stenting

Coronary stents have markedly improved the short- and intermediate-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention by improving acute gains in luminal dimensions, decreasing abrupt vessel occlusion, and decreasing restenosis, yet the long-term benefit of coronary stenting remains uncertain. We examined long-term clinical outcomes of death, myocardial infarction, and repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) among patients enrolled in the Duke Database for Cardiovascular Disease who underwent revascularization with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty alone or stent placement from 1990 to 2002. Among 6,956 patients who underwent percutaneous revascularization, propensity modeling was applied to identify 1,288 matched patients with a similar likelihood to receive coronary stents according to clinical, angiographic, and demographic characteristics. Significant (p <0.05) predictors of stent placement included multivessel disease, diabetes, hypertension, recent myocardial infarction, decreased ejection fraction, and year of study entry. At a median follow-up of 7 years, although treatment with coronary stenting was associated with a significant and sustained decrease in repeat TVR (18.0% vs 28.1%, p = 0.0002) and the occurrence of death, myocardial infarction or TVR (39.2% vs 45.8%, p = 0.004), long-term survival did not significantly differ between treatment groups (19.9% vs 20.5%, p = 0.72). Outcomes of death and myocardial infarction did not significantly differ between patients who did and did not undergo repeat TVR. In conclusion, compared with angioplasty alone, revascularization with coronary stents provides a significant early and sustained decrease in the need for repeat revascularization, but stents do not influence long-term survival.