Abstract
For patients with acute myocardial infarction scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary stent implantation, in most cases a drug-eluting stent is recommended as the first choice for treatment. However, there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of bare-metal stents and drug-eluting stents on patients with different types of myocardial infarction. Our objective was to explore the effects of bare-metal stents and drug-eluting stents on patients with different types of myocardial infarction in terms of major cardiovascular incidents. This retrospective cohort study included 934 patients with myocardial infarction undergoing coronary artery stent implantation for the first time at the cardiac catheter room of the Tri-Service General Hospital in the Neihu District between 2014 and 2018. Patients’ information, including demographic data, laboratory data, cardiac echocardiography results, and angiocardiography results, was collected by reviewing medical records. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust the potential confounding factors, and the adjusted data were then used to compare the correlation between different types of stents and major cardiovascular incidents in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. After the confounding factors were adjusted, in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction receiving a drug-eluting stent compared with those receiving a bare-metal stent, it was found that the mortality risk was lower in terms of all causes of death (Adj-HR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.14–0.48, p < 0.001) and cardiogenic death (Adj-HR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.08–0.55, p = 0.002), the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction was lower (Adj-HR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.04–0.73, p = 0.017), and there was no difference in the risk of revascularization at the lesion site (Adj-HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.24–1.43, p = 0.243). It terms of the findings in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, those receiving a drug-eluting stent had a lower risk of revascularization at the lesion site (Adj-HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.24–0.97, p = 0.04); however, there was no difference in the mortality risk in terms of all causes of death (Adj-HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.37–1.35, p = 0.296) or cardiogenic death (Adj-HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.18–1.90, p = 0.379),or in the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (Adj-HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.06–1.25, p = 0.093). Compared with bare-metal stents, drug-eluting stents provide better protection against death to receivers with ST-elevation myocardial infarction; however, this protection is decreased in receivers with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. It is recommended that for patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction who are indicated to receive a drug-eluting stent, the clinical effectiveness of the treatment must be considered.
Highlights
Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are currently mainly treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
AMI, and DEBATER, it has been found that, compared with bare-metal stents, drug-eluting stents are more effective in lowering the risk of major cardiovascular incidents in patients with AMI, which supports the finding of this study [20,23,24,25]
This study found that drug-eluting stents could exert a protective effect on patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), which is consistent with how these patients are currently treated with antithrombotic drugs [21,26,27]
Summary
Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are currently mainly treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Compared with bare-metal stents, drug-eluting stents can decrease the chance of reinfarction; they are more expensive, and their receivers are subject to a longer period of medication and are more likely to experience complications, including intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding [1]. Baremetal stents are less expensive, but they come with a higher risk of reinfarction, which limits their clinical utilization [2]. Because different complications following interventions have different mechanisms, studies aiming at a single prognosis have shown inconsistent results. Further and more comprehensive discussion is needed to examine the advantages and disadvantages of these two kinds of stents.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
