Drug-Eluting Stents in Animals and Patients

Abstract

Four legs good, two legs better. — —George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945 Since the earliest use of coronary stents for treating symptomatic coronary stenosis, maintaining patent arteries after treatment has remained an elusive goal. Although the first bare metal stents opened stenotic arteries, they injured the arterial wall. The buildup of intimal scar tissue caused restenosis, a frustrating problem for prevention or treatment. After a dozen years of research, however, drug-eluting stents were developed; armed with polymer coating and paclitaxel or sirolimus, they prevented restenosis and were hailed as a major therapeutic breakthrough. Article see p 141 Not long afterward, however, questions about the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents surfaced as reports of late stent thrombosis began to appear.1,2 Cardiologists wondered if prevention of restenosis was always a good thing. If no protective cellular layer formed over the struts of the drug-eluting stent—even months or years after implantation—would thrombus develop on the exposed metal scaffolding or other damaged or inflamed areas on the blood vessel wall? Over months or years, would progressive inflammation or late “catchup” tissue growth cause drug-eluting stents to lose their early advantage over bare metal stents? The pendulum in this debate has swung back and forth as clinical trials first raised concern about increased thrombosis and then later quelled our fears as our understanding of how drug-eluting stents work in real life has matured. An important issue has been the increased use of stents in patients with more complex coronary and other disorders, raising the question of whether the established standards of safety and efficacy still apply. Answers for these challenging questions have come from 2 worlds: clinical studies of patients with stents …