Continued benefit of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty: five-year clinical follow-up of Benestent-I trial

Abstract

OBJECTIVESThis study sought to establish whether the early favorable results in the Benestent-I randomized trial comparing elective Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in 516 patients with stable angina pectoris are maintained at 5 years.BACKGROUNDThe size of the required sample was based on a 40% reduction in clinical events in the stent group. Seven months and one-year follow-up in this trial showed a decreased incidence of restenosis and clinical events in patients randomized to stent implantation.METHODSData at five years were collected by outpatient visit, via telephone and via the referring cardiologist. Three patients in the stent group and one in the percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) group were lost to follow-up at five years. Major clinical events, anginal status and use of cardiac medication were recorded according to the intention to treat principle.RESULTSNo significant differences were found in anginal status and use of cardiac medication between the two groups. In the PTCA group, 27.3% of patients underwent target lesion revascularization (TLR) versus 17.2% of patients in the stent group (p = 0.008). No significant differences in mortality (5.9% vs. 3.1%), cerebrovascular accident (0.8% vs. 1.2%), myocardial infarction (9.4% vs. 6.3%) or coronary bypass surgery (11.7% vs. 9.8%) were found between the stent and PTCA groups, respectively. At five years, the event-free survival rate (59.8% vs. 65.6%; p = 0.20) between the stent and PTCA groups no longer achieved statistical significance.CONCLUSIONSThe original 10% absolute difference in TLR in favor of the stent group has remained unchanged at five years, emphasizing the long-term stability of the stented target site.