• Eun-Hwan Oh, Yuichi Imanaka, Kenshi Hayashida, and Hiroe Kobuse.
• Department of Healthcare Economics and Quality Management, School of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
• Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2007 Sep 1;5(3):296-304.

AbstractObjective  To compare clinical outcomes among patients receiving drug-eluting stents, bare metal stents, or coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) to treat coronary artery disease. Data sources  Randomised controlled trials were systematically selected from electronic database for head-to-head comparisons. The results from these head-to-head comparisons were used for an adjusted indirect comparison. Methods  Published randomised controlled trials were reviewed for outcome data in patients treated for coronary artery disease with drug-eluting stents, bare metal stents, or CABG. Head-to-head comparisons were conducted for drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents and for CABG versus bare metal stents. Adjusted indirect comparison was used to compare drug-eluting stents and CABG. Mid-term clinical outcomes (range: 6-12 months) were investigated and included rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, target lesion revascularisation, target vessel revascularisation, restenosis and major adverse cardiac events. Results  Systematic literature search identified 23 randomised controlled trials (15 for drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents, 8 for CABG vs. bare metal stents). Head-to-head comparisons for both single and multiple vessel disease demonstrated that compared with bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents had better outcomes for target lesion revascularisation, target vessel revascularisation, restenosis and major adverse cardiac events. Except target lesion revascularisation, data were similarly favourable for CABG when compared with bare metal stents. Adjusted indirect comparison between drug-eluting stents and CABG in single vessel disease failed to detect significant differences in any of the measured outcomes. Multiple vessel disease data analysis demonstrated that target vessel revascularisation (odds ratio 3.41 [95% CI 2.29-5.08]) and major adverse cardiac events (1.89 [1.28-2.79]) were superior to drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing CABG. Conclusions  Drug-eluting stents and CABG were superior to bare metal stents in terms of target lesion revascularisation (drug-eluting stents only), target vessel revascularisation, restenosis and major adverse cardiac events. There was no difference in clinical outcomes when comparing CABG and drug-eluting stents in patients with single vessel disease, and CABG may be superior to drug-eluting stents for target vessel revascularisation and major adverse cardiac events in patients with multiple vessel disease. However, results may vary between subpopulations with different clinical or socioeconomic differences.

0 keywords...

hide…