Five-Year Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion Treated With Drug-Eluting vs Bare-Metal Stents: A Case-Control Study

Abstract

BackgroundLimited data exist on long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in true chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) settings. We evaluated 5-year clinical outcomes of patients with CTO treated successfully with DES vs bare-metal stent (BMS). MethodsWe compared the 5-year clinical outcomes of 156 patients treated with DES implantation with outcomes of a historical cohort of 159 patients treated with BMS. Primary end point was freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; defined as death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization [TLR]); secondary end points were freedom from target vessel failure (TVF; combination of target vessel revascularization, MI, and cardiac death) and TLR at 5 years. ResultsAfter 5 years, the DES group had significantly superior event-free survival from MACE (84% vs 69%; log rank P < 0.001), TVF (71% vs 84%; P = 0.002), and TLR (77% vs 92%; P = 0.0001), compared with the BMS group. The Cox proportional hazards model identified BMS vs DES (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 3.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-6.17; P = 0.001), final minimal lumen diameter (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.52; P = 0.0001), and stent length (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = 0.03) as independent predictors of MACE at 5-year follow-up. Twelve (7%) and 7 (4%) stent thromboses occurred in the DES and BMS groups (P = 0.23), respectively. ConclusionsAfter 5 years, DESs were superior to BMSs in reducing MACE, TVF, and TLR in patients with CTO and should be the preferred strategy.