Objective: To determine whether coronary stenting, compared to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, reduces the incidence of five clinical endpoints during a six-month follow-up period.
Background: There is considerable debate concerning whether coronary stents improve clinical outcomes, especially given the rapid growth in the use of coronary stents and their economic impact.
Methods: Study population included a total of 6,671 consecutive patients at 32 hospitals in 16 different states who underwent single or multi-vessel revascularization during 1997. Patients were divided into one of two groups: those who only underwent standard balloon angioplasty (PTCA) for all treated vessels and those who received coronary stents (STENT) in all treated vessels.
Results: STENT patients were significantly less likely to have emergency coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) (p = 0.001) or die during initial procedure (p = 0.034) but were more likely than PTCA patients to be treated for hematoma (p = 0.002) and bradycardia (p = 0.004). After accounting for difference in patient characteristics, risk factors, procedure complications, and number of devices utilized, the estimated odds-ratio indicates that coronary stenting, compared to PTCA, significantly (p < 0.05) reduced adverse outcomes for only one clinical event, myocardial infarction.
Conclusions: Compared to balloon angioplasty patients, coronary stent patients have no statistically significant differences in regard to additional percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass during a six-month follow-up period. Since direct cardiac catheterization lab costs associated with coronary stenting is nearly 2.5 times greater than standard balloon angioplasty, our results suggest the cost-effectiveness of coronary stenting, especially for "hard" clinical outcomes, needs to be established.