This Article Free upon publication Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 118/18/1783    most recent CIRCULATIONAHA.108.810754v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by King, S. B. Articles by Hannan, E. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by King, S. B., III Articles by Hannan, E. L. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Restenosis Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents

(Circulation. 2008;118:1783-1784.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Mounting Evidence for Safety and Improved Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Stenting

But Is It the Stent?

From the Saint Joseph’s Heart and Vascular Institute, Atlanta, Ga.

Correspondence to Spencer B. King, III, MD, MACC, President, Saint Joseph’s Heart and Vascular Institute, 5665 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30342. E-mail sbking@sjha.org

Key Words: Editorials • restenosis • stents • thrombosis • survival

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
Restenosis after coronary interventions was referred to as the "soft underbelly" of angioplasty by Richard Myler, MD, 30 years ago. However, restenosis was not demonstrated to be significantly related to a safety risk but was rather an "inconvenient truth," which was reflected primarily by disruption of the patient’s schedule and increased costs. For the operator it provided an opportunity to perform rather easy angioplasty procedures with predictable results. Nonetheless, elimination of the "soft underbelly" was a dream for many, and after drug-eluting stents (DES) were shown to markedly reduce restenosis, Patrick Serruys, MD, PhD, declared that they were "a dream come true." That dream seemed to be turning into a nightmare in 2006 when several reports pointed to the catastrophic complications of late stent thrombosis, which was more prevalent with DES than with bare metal stents (BMS).¹ Despite the exaggerated benefit of DES seen in clinical trials, the reduction in restenosis in many lesion subsets was clear and a benefit not to be sacrificed lightly.² The occurrence of late thrombosis, however, was also reported to be associated with an increased mortality rate for patients receiving DES. The Swedish Registry among others was sobering, and the use of DES plummeted from around 90% to close to 60% in the United States.³

Article p 1817

	Are Drug-Eluting Stents Dangerous?

 
As this bad news was being digested, pivotal trial data were examined and, although the small late thrombosis excess was confirmed, no signal for increased mortality was seen.⁴ Registries examining this issue agreed and began to show . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. B. King III Which stent for diabetic patients: the glass half-full or half-empty? Eur. Heart J., November 27, 2009; (2009) ehp390v1. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Aalkjaer and D. B. Boedtkjer Getting Neointimal: The Emergence of Heparanase Into the Vascular Matrix Circ. Res., February 13, 2009; 104(3): 277 - 279. [Full Text] [PDF]