Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008; 51:607-614, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.064
© 2008 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (27)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Applegate, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Little, W. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Applegate, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Little, W. C.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Articles

"Off-Label" Stent Therapy

2-Year Comparison of Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents

Robert J. Applegate, MD, FACC*, Matthew T. Sacrinty, MPH, Michael A. Kutcher, MD, FACC, Renato M. Santos, MD, FACC, Sanjay K. Gandhi, MD, FACC, Talal T. Baki, MD, FACC and William C. Little, MD, FACC

Section of Cardiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.


Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 1 Kaplan-Meier Plots of Cumulative Events for BMS and DES up to 2 Years

The number of patients at risk for each follow-up period is given below each graph. All adverse outcomes were lower with drug-eluting stents (DES) than with bare-metal stents (BMS), whereas cumulative stent thrombosis rates were similar. MI = myocardial infarction.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 2 Kaplan-Meier Plots of Cumulative Events up to 2 Years for "On-Label" and "Off-Label" BMS and DES Indications

The number of patients at risk for each follow-up period is given below the graph. All adverse outcomes were lower with DES than with BMS for both "on-label" and "off-label" indications, and event rates were lower for "on-label" compared with "off-label" indications regardless of stent type. Abbreviations as in Figure 1.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 3 Timing of Stent Thrombosis up to 2 Years

No stent thrombosis occurred with "on-label" indications, although late stent thrombosis >1 year occurred only with "off-label" DES use. Abbreviations as in Figure 1.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 4 Hazard Ratio of Nonfatal MI or Death Comparing BMS With DES by Subgroup

The hazard of nonfatal MI or death was lower for DES use than for BMS use in all high-risk subgroups evaluated. *Number of patients who did not have censored follow-up data before 2 years. {dagger}Eight patients did not have history of renal failure data available. {ddagger}Seven patients did not have diabetes mellitus data available. ACS = acute coronary syndrome; CHF = congestive heart failure; CI = confidence interval; other abbreviations as in Figure 1.

 




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement