BACKGROUND Drug-eluting stents have been seen as an attractive alternative to bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) because of the decreased need for revascularization. However, comparative clinical trials have shown no difference in patient outcomes, and drug-eluting stents are considerably more expensive than their bare-metal counterparts. We conducted a systematic ...

Rev Esp Cardiol 2004;57(2):99-108 99 The efficacy of drug-eluting stents measured as the late loss, percentage neointimal volume, restenosis, target lesion revascularization and major cardiac events is significantly better than that of bare metal stents. The incidence of thrombosis and aneurysms is similar. Although there is a slight increase in late malapposition, this is not followed by an in...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The interventional cardiologist chooses a specific stent type based on the risk-benefit profile for each case. In general, drug-eluting stents should be considered in all clinical conditions, except if there are concerns or contraindications for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy. The aim of this work was to describe the use of bare-metal vs. drug-eluting stents in ...