Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have been shown to dramatically reduce restenosis and improve the rate of event-free survival, the benefit of DES appears to be limited to restenosis. In this retrospective, single-center study we aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of DES versus bare-metal stent (BMS) in large coronary arteries (diameter≥3.5mm).

A total of 164 consecutive patients (mean age 60 years) required percutaneous coronary intervention with stents≥3.5mm in diameter, 84 were BMS and 80 DES. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as angiographically defined in-stent restenosis (ISR), stent thrombosis and death from any cause.

A mean clinical follow up of 28 months was obtained. The DES group had higher rates of diabetes (63% vs 37%, p=0.001), previous CAD (74% vs 25%, p=0.001) and previous PCI (69% vs 31%, p=<0.04). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the rate of hyper-tension, dyslipidemia, smokers and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction. There was a higher average stent length in the DES group (18.7 vs 16.3, p=0.011) as well as a lower average stent diameter (3.54 vs 3.63, p=0.003). There was a significant difference in MACE between the two groups in favour of DES (11.3% DES vs 23.8% BMS group, p=0.04) at 28 months. The rate of in-stent restenosis (ISR) was significantly reduced among patients receiving DES with ISR rates of 15.8% among patients receiving DES compared to 41.7% among those receiving BMS (p=0.025). There were no significant differences in the rate of death or stent thrombosis.

In patients requiring stenting of large coronary arteries, there was reduced MACE in patients treated with DES. This benefit was primarily driven by decreased in-stent restenosis rate.