Meta-Analysis Comparing the Effect of Drug-Eluting Versus Bare Metal Stents on Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction During Follow-Up

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Our results for mortality, TVR, and stent thrombosis in RCTs comparing DES with BMS are consistent with other reports and meta-analysis (1;3;13;14;18;22;24;25). Contrary to previous studies, we found a significant reduction of recurrent MI in DES versus BMS in RCTs (1;3;14).…”

“…Of the 473 citations reviewed for existing systematic reviews or meta-analyses, nine reviews met our inclusion criteria (1;3;4;13;14;18;22;24;25). Supplementary Figure 1, which can be viewed online at , shows our study flow diagram to identify previous reviews.…”

Determining clinical benefits of drug-eluting coronary stents according to the population risk profile: A meta-regression from 31 randomized trials

“…This confirms the safety of DES within the first year after stent implantation [29]. Even, DES could reduce the incidence of acute myocardial infarction during the first year after stent implantation, mainly due to the reduction in the rates of myocardial infarction associated with severe in-stent restenosis presenting as high-risk acute coronary syndrome [30].…”

“…First, our study only considered outcomes up to 12 months after stent placement, although concern has been expressed about the safety of DES beyond this timeframe [31,32]. However, the main objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of DES, that mainly occurs within the first year after stent placement [30]. Second, despite the differences in risk profiles apparent from our analysis, patients eligible to take part in randomized trials tend to be highly selected (e.g.…”

Materials, fluid dynamics, and solid mechanics aspects of coronary artery stents: A state‐of‐the‐art review

“…Indeed, this issue is, without doubt, the most contentious in contemporary stenting. 58,59 Also, in spite of the voluminous number of clinical studies involving BMSs and DESs, [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] no definitive statements can be made about their relative performances vis a vis ISR and IST, a situation that may be attributed to heterogeneities in a number of features of these studies, notably number of patients, reference-vessel diameter, lesion length, definition of clinical endpoint, length of follow-up, and method of analysis of the results (Table III). In recognition of this limitation, meta-analyses of RCTs are common but, in using this methodology, special attention should be paid to issues such as selection and publication biases.…”