Clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients on chronic hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND

Patients on chronic hemodialysis (HD) are recognized as a high-risk group for adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention, and whether drug-eluting stents (DES) are associated with improved outcomes over bare metal stents (BMS) is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of DES compared with BMS at short- and long-term follow-up (FU) in an unselected sample of HD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the time period 2005-2010, consecutive patients on chronic HD treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and stent implantation were retrospectively selected and analyzed. A total of 169 patients were selected, 77 treated exclusively with BMS and 92 exclusively with DES. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the 2 groups as well as the number of treated vessels, treated lesions, and the stent per patient ratio. At longest available FU, no difference between the 2 study groups was found in terms of cardiac death (18.2% vs 16.3%, P=0.83), myocardial infarction (2.5% vs 8.6%, P=0.09), cerebrovascular accidents (0% vs 1.1%, P=0.98), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (9.1% vs 16.3%, P=0.17). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events-free survival at 1,500 days in the BMS and DES groups was 57.6% and 50.9% (P=0.11), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PCI in patients on chronic HD treatment is associated with a high incidence of adverse events at FU, mainly represented by death. In our study, the use of DES was not associated with a reduction of target lesion revascularization (TLR) and TVR.