Four-year comparative effectiveness of bare-metal and everolimus-eluting stents in New York.

OBJECTIVES

To study four-year outcomes for patients receiving either bare-metal stents (BMS) or everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of BMS versus EES in six "off-label" and two "high-risk" patient subgroups.

BACKGROUND

BMS and EES (a second generation of drug-eluting stent) are used in contemporary practice to treat coronary artery disease. However, little is known about long-term comparative effectiveness between BMS and EES.

METHODS

Using the New York State (NYS) cardiac registries, statewide hospital discharge data, the National Death Index, and the U.S. Census file, we assessed four-year outcomes of BMS versus EES in patients receiving either BMS or EES from July 2008 through December 2009. The outcomes included all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), target-lesion PCI (TLPCI), and target-vessel coronary artery bypass graft (TVCABG) surgery for a follow-up period of four years (median follow-up of 3.6 years). We compared 9,290 propensity score matched pairs with further adjustment using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Compared with patients receiving BMS, patients receiving EES had a lower rate of four-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio <AHR>: 0.58, 95% confidence interval <CI>: 0.54-0.63), AMI (AHR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61-0.76), TLPCI (AHR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.60-0.75), and TVCABG (AHR, 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43-0.65). For "off-label" and "high-risk" subgroups, EES was associated with decreased mortality and generally better AMI, TLPCI, and TVCABG outcomes relative to BMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with BMS use, EES use was associated with better four-year outcomes.