冠状动脉介入治疗术后抗血小板药物治疗的现况分析

目的了解经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）术后抗血小板药物的应用是否规范，并对其可能的原因进行分析。方法对2001-07-01-2002-06-30与2003-07-01-2004-06-30两个时间段内，于首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院心内科行PCI治疗的注册研究患者进行回顾分析，研究其术后抗血小板治疗药物的种类、联合用药、药物剂量及服用时间。结果1728例患者接受了PCI治疗，其中1006例患者置入药物洗脱支架（DES组），518例置入普通金属支架（BMS组），192例患者同时置入了DES与BMS，12例患者单纯球囊扩张。术后有70例患者未继续使用任何抗血小板治疗药物。其余1658例患者使用1种或1种以上抗血小板治疗药物。进一步分析BMS组与DES组术后抗血小板药物的使用情况，术后未使用任何抗血小板药物（BMS组52例，DES组18例，P〈0．001），只使用阿司匹林一种抗血小板药物（BMS组236例，DES组180例。P〈0．001），只使用噻吩并吡啶类药物（BMS组45例，DSE组39例，P〉0．05），使用阿司匹林加噻吩并吡啶类药物双重抗血小板治疗（BMS组350例，DES组808例，P〈0．001）。结论冠状动脉介入治疗术后的抗血小板治疗有待进一步加强，提高抗血小板药物的依从性，降低PCI术后并发症的发生。     

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术后双联抗血小板治疗研究进展

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后双联抗血小板治疗(DAPT)已经成为标准治疗,无论是置入裸金属支架(BMS)还是药物洗脱支架(DES),DAPT已证实可减少支架内血栓形成、心肌梗死(MI)和死亡风险。虽然当前指南推荐置入BMS后应用DAPT至少1个月,置入DES后应用DAPT至少12个月,但随着新型抗血小板药物的出现和临床试验结果的公布,不同DES的双联抗血小板药物时限仍存争议,本文旨在探讨PCI术后双联抗血小板药物在不同类型支架及病变置入支架后抗血小板时限、新型抗血小板药物的应用以及氯吡格雷抵抗患者的抗血小板药物选择,以期对临床实践给予指导。     

药物洗脱支架与金属裸支架内血栓发生率比较

目的:了解置入药物洗脱支架(DES)患者在经皮冠状动脉(冠脉)介入治疗(PCI)术后各期支架血栓(ST)的发生情况,并与置入金属裸支架(BMS)患者进行比较,探讨影响支架血栓发生的危险因素.方法:连续入选2001-07至2002-06和2003-07至2005-06期间接受PCI并置入支架的所有患者,共入选3 893例.随访至少2年.根据所使用支架分为DES组(n=2 930,至少置入1枚DES)和BMS组(n=963,单纯置入BMS).记录所有患者住院期和随访期内临床资料,并根据美国和欧洲学者组成的学术研究联盟(ARC)正式发表的支架血栓定义判定支架血栓事件.结果:与BMS组相比,DES组患者的平均年龄较大,而白细胞数、甘油三脂水平和空腹血糖水平较低,既往有冠脉血运重建病史者较多,但吸烟、糖尿病和ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)发生率较低;在DES组患者的冠脉病变中,多支病变、开口病变、前降支(LAD)近段病变和左主干(LM)病变发生率较高,但慢性完全闭塞性(CTO)病变所占的发生率较低,造影成功率及完全血运重建率均较高,差异均有统计学意义(P均＜0.05～0.001).两组患者PCI术后无论在住院期还是之后的随访期内,所有的不良心脑血管事件发生率均无显著差异,而支架血栓发生率在急性期、亚急性期、晚期和晚晚期均无差异(P均＞0.05).Cox回归分析结果提示,DES组患者发生支架血栓的危险因素为:氯吡格雷疗程短和冠脉多支病变(P均＜0.001);而BMS组患者发生支架血栓的危险因素为:血清肌酐值升高和合并高血压(P均＜0.05).结论:尽管DES时代患者的病变更为复杂,所置入的DES数更多,但支架血栓的发生率并不比BMS时代更高.但术后双联抗血小板治疗的疗程过短和冠脉多支病变是支架血栓发生的危险因素,应引起重视.     

置入DES与BMS病人术后支架血栓发生率的差异及其影响因素分析

目的比较药物洗脱支架(DES)和裸金属支架(BMS)置入病人术后各期支架血栓发生率的差异,并分析其影响因素。方法以2012年3月—2014年3月在我院行经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)的420例病人为研究对象,根据其置入支架的不同,分为DES组(320例)和BMS组(100例),并对其进行为期1年半的随访,观察两组病人术后心功能情况以及不良心脏事件、再狭窄和缺血性靶血管重建的发生情况,比较两组病人术后不同时期支架内血栓的发生率,并分析影响血栓形成的因素。结果两组病人术后每搏量(SV)、N-末端脑利钠肽原(NT-proBNP)、肌钙蛋白I(CTnI)、左室短轴缩短率(LVPS)和左室射血分数(LVEF)等心功能指标比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);PCI术后,DES组病人不良心脏事件、再狭窄和缺血性靶血管重建的发生率明显较BMS组低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组病人在置入支架后24h内和24h至1个月内支架内血栓的发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05),而DES组在置入后1个月至1年内和置入1年以上支架内血栓的发生率明显高于BMS组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);是否有糖尿病史、抗血小板药物服用情况、支架的类型、直径、数量和长度是影响支架内血栓发生的因素。结论 DES虽可降低PCI术后再狭窄和不良心脏事件的发生率,但晚期支架内血栓的发生率却较BMS高,提示DES置入病人更应重视术后抗血小板等相关药物的应用。     

对比分析CYPHER支架、TAXUS支架和BMS在治疗冠状动脉长病变的疗效差异

冠脉长病变PCI术后易发生再狭窄,DES在冠脉长病变中的疗效尚不清楚。此项研究的目的是观察CYPHER支架(SES)、TAXUS支架(PES)和BMS治疗冠脉长病变来分析三者间疗效差异。入选527例冠脉病变≥24mm的患者,其中223处病变置入SES(≥28mm),194处病变置入PES,201处病变置入BMS。结果显示,SES组、PES组中的病变长度均明显大于BMS组[(36.0±14.9)mm、(36.3±14.5)mm比(32.0±12.3)mm,P<0.001],DES组的支架长度明显长于BMS组。6个月造影随访结果显示,SES组和PES组中的段内再狭窄均明显低于BMS组(9.3%、21.3%比42.5%,P<0.001)…     

PCI术后双联抗血小板治疗致上消化道出血的预防与治疗

经皮冠状动脉介入术（PCI）后,接受阿司匹林和波立维双联抗血小板治疗已经成为预防支架内血栓形成的标准化治疗。在置入药物涂层支架（DES）后由于支架内皮化进程缓慢,服用双联抗血小板药物甚至要长于24个月。据统计,我国2008年进行PCI术患者约为16万,2009年预计将超过20万。由于行PCI术患者数日庞大,术后服用双联抗血小板治疗带来的副作用,     

普拉格雷在冠心病介入治疗中的研究进展

口服双重抗血小板药物阿司匹林加噻吩吡啶,已获准在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）中使用。第二代噻吩吡啶类衍生物氯吡格雷是给予PCI患者双重抗血小板治疗的选择性药物。但是,氯吡格雷存在两个缺陷:①氯吡格雷需要代谢产生其活性的形式,故抗血小板活性延迟;②已证明不同患者给予氯吡格雷后的反应存在很大差异性。为了克服氯吡格雷的上述缺陷,新一代更有效的普拉格雷（即第三代噻吩吡啶类衍生物）,临床评价其可以快速起效。本文对第三代口服噻吩吡啶普拉格雷进行了综述,旨在总结普拉格雷的利弊并概述该药在临床使用中最谨慎的方案。     

聚合物可降解支架对维持性血液透析合并急性冠状动脉综合征患者的疗效

目的探讨聚合物可降解药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗维持性血液透析(MHD)合并急性冠状动脉综合征患者的疗效。方法入选2008年1月至2013年7月沈阳军区总医院血液透析科100例MHD合并急性冠状动脉综合征的患者进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),将患者随机分为两组,置入EXCEL支架(聚合物可降解DES)组50例,置入FIREBIRD支架(普通DES)组50例。其中男61例,女39例,年龄43~74(58.4±9.2)岁。常规行PCI,术后EXCEL组患者服用阿司匹林(100 mg,每日一次)和氯吡格雷(75 mg,每日一次)双联抗血小板治疗(DAPT)6个月,随后长期服用阿司匹林(100 mg,每日一次);FIREBIRD组患者应用阿司匹林(100 mg,每日一次)和氯吡格雷(75 mg,每日一次)12个月,随后长期服用阿司匹林(100 mg,每日一次)。观察术后12个月患者主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)和出血事件的发生情况。结果两组患者入院时临床及造影基线资料差异无统计学意义(P0.05),住院期间未发生MACCE。术后12个月内两组患者MACCE发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05),未发生支架血栓。术后12个月内EXCEL组主要出血1例,为消化道溃疡所致;FIREBIRD组主要出血2例,均为脑出血。FIREBIRD组总出血事件显著高于EXCEL组(P0.05)。结论聚合物可降解DES治疗MHD合并ACS患者有效,应用6个月的DAPT是安全的。     

血栓弹力图监测糖尿病患者经皮冠状动脉介入术后抗血小板药物抵抗的发生率

目的探讨对行经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)患者行血栓弹力图监测糖尿病患者抗血小板药物抵抗的效果。方法选取该院2017年3月—2018年12月在该院急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)行PCI术治疗且接受阿司匹林、氯吡格雷等药物治疗的102例患者为研究对象,根据患者糖尿病患病情况分成糖尿病组(n=36)与非糖尿病组(n=66),在为患者使用抗血小板药物后,应用血栓弹力图检测两组对抗血小板药物抵抗的情况。结果 36例糖尿病患者中,12例(33.33%)患者对阿司匹林抵抗,14例(38.89%)对氯吡格雷抵抗,66例非糖尿病患者中8例(12.12%)对阿司匹林抵抗,9例(13.64%)对氯吡格雷抵抗,两组对比差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论患有ACS合并糖尿病的患者,在PCI术后极易出现抗血小板药物抵抗。     

药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗弥漫病变的比较研究

目的比较冠心病患者弥漫病变采用药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗的近期和远期预后,分析影响这类病变介入治疗预后的危险因素。方法研究对象为我院2004年4月至2005年8月接受置入单个长度>25.0mm支架治疗并且进行冠状动脉造影随访的205例患者,排除支架置入失败及支架置入位置不理想者。分为置入药物洗脱支架(DES)组(n=128)和置入金属裸支架(BMS)组(n=77)。所有的患者术后均接受阿司匹林300mg、氯吡格雷75mg等规范药物治疗。手术成功判定标准为至少用相互垂直的两个投照体位行冠状动脉造影,肉眼判定残余狭窄<20%和前向血流TIMI3级。再狭窄判定标准以复查冠状动脉造影定量分析支架内或支架邻近血管管腔直径狭窄程度≥50%。患者在支架术后6个月左右接受冠状动脉造影随访。结果共205例患者(男性181例,女性24例)227个靶病变置入382枚支架完成造影随访。其中C型病变占总数的93.8%,B2型病变为6.2%。双支或双支以上血管病变的患者比例达到86.8%。平均术前参考血管直径(2.88±0.43)mm。平均每个病变支架长度(40.09±12.94)mm,54.2%的病变接受了重叠置入支架。比较置入DES组和置入BMS组,两组的患者基本条件差异无统计学意义,在病变基本条件方面,DES组术前参考血管直径明显小于BMS组[(2.80±0.37)mm比(3.10±0.48)mm,P=0.005]。6个月随访结果显示再狭窄率DES组(15.4%)小于BMS组(48.4%),P<0.001。晚期支架内腔径丢失BMS组明显大于DES组[(0.94±0.76)mm比(0.39±0.53)mm,P<0.001]。靶病变血管重建率DES要明显好于BMS(11.6%比38.5%,P<0.001)。支架内再狭窄在置入DES组的局限性再狭窄比例大于置入BMS组(33.3%比18.2%,P=0.029)。对影响复杂弥漫病变支架再狭窄因素的多元logistic回归分析发现,采用支架重叠置入(OR=2.82,P=0.017)和支架类型(OR=5.71,P<0.001)是对复杂弥漫病变支架内再狭窄影响最大的危险因素。结论我们的研究发现对于复杂弥漫病变的治疗,药物洗脱支架有着良好的治疗效果,较金属裸支架能明显减低再狭窄率。对于弥漫病变,我们应该使用长支架,尽可能减少支架重叠置入的数量。     

Drug-eluting stents are associated with similar cardiovascular outcomes when compared to bare metal stents in the setting of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) as compared to bare metal stents (BMSs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared outcomes among patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who received DES with those who received BMS. METHODS: In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes of a cohort of 122 patients who underwent primary or facilitated PCI and received a BMS were compared to 122 propensity-matched patients who received a DES. Seventy-two patients received sirolimus-eluting stents, and 50 received paclitaxel-eluting stents. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar among groups. One-, 6-, and 12-month outcomes, including reinfarction, death, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were similar among groups. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was 13.3% in the BMS group and 9.2% in the DES group [P=not significant (ns)], recurrent MI was 5.3% in the BMS group vs. 4.4% in the DES group (P=ns), and TVR was 7% in the BMS group vs. 8.7% in the DES group (P=ns). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the general use of DES in the setting of STEMI given similar cardiovascular outcomes among patients receiving BMS or DES, the need for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy with DES, and the possible repercussions of very late stent thrombosis.     

Another view of personalized medicine: optimizing stent selection on the basis of predicted benefit in percutaneous coronary intervention

Drug-eluting stents (DES) decrease the risk of restenosis compared to bare metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, their use requires patients to take prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy that increases bleeding risk and without which, patients have an increased risk of developing stent thrombosis. In light of these competing risks, understanding which patients derive the greatest benefit of DES compared to BMS is essential for guiding therapy. We review recent efforts to predict the magnitude of the restenosis benefit of DES compared to BMS for individual patients. Understanding and predicting the likelihood of benefit for individual patients is essential to rational decision making with regard to the type of stent to use during PCI and will serve to increase the value of the health care that clinicians deliver.     

Benefits of drug eluting stents versus bare metal stents in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a contemporary review

The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in reducing the rates of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in stable coronary artery disease has been well demonstrated. Thus, the Food and Drug Administration has approved the utilization of DES for stable coronary disease. However, there is still much debate surrounding the implantation of DES for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) given safety concerns about the possibility of increased rates of stent thrombosis with DES. The review of the current body of evidence comparing DES with BMS is consistent with results from previous trials in stable coronary disease and reveals lower rates of revascularization with DES in STEMI patients. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriate stent during PCI needs to be individualized as patients' compliance with dual antiplatelet therapy is critical. The data suggest that PCI with DES in STEMI patients who adhere to long-term dual antiplatelet therapy is safe and effective. Randomized trials with longer-term follow-up are necessary to better elucidate the safety and efficacy of DES versus BMS in patients with STEMI.     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉小血管病变的疗效分析

目的通过分析比较裸金属支架(BMS)与药物洗脱支架[DES,包括雷帕霉素(Cypher)支架和紫杉醇(TAXUS)支架]治疗冠状动脉小血管病变疗效的差异,为DES治疗多支及单支小血管病变冠心病提供依据。方法连续入选2002年12月至2005年5月沈阳军区总医院首次接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)、靶血管为小血管病变且达到完全血运重建的486例患者,其中多支小血管病变(多支)150例。分为BMS组214例(多支63例)、Cypher组140例(多支46例)和TAXUS组132例(多支41例),对比分析各组患者住院期间及随访6个月的临床情况。结果3组患者冠脉病变特点、PCI成功率及住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率等指标差异均无显著性(P>0·05)。冠脉造影随访显示,两个DES组再狭窄率均明显低于BMS(Cypher组4·9%,TAXUS组7·5%对BMS组29·2%,P<0·05),随访期间MACE发生率亦明显低于BMS(Cypher组2·9%,TAXUS组3·9%对BMS组12·0%,P<0·01)。进一步分析多支小血管病例,发现两个DES组的再狭窄率及随访期间MACE发生率仍然明显低于BMS组(再狭窄率Cypher组6·7%,TAXUS组7·1%对BMS组37·5%,P<0·05;MACE发生率Cypher组4·1%,TAXUS组4·8%对BMS组21·0%,P<0·05)。结论Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗小血管病变安全可行,疗效显著,治疗多支小血管病变可得到相同的疗效。     

Drug-eluting stenting is superior to bare metal stenting in saphenous vein grafts.

This study compared the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) with drug-eluting stents (DES) with bare metal stents (BMS). PCI of degenerated SVG is associated with worse outcomes and high incidence of in-stent restenosis compared with PCI of native coronary arteries. There is a paucity of data on the outcomes of PCI of SVG with DES. Data from 223 consecutive patients who underwent PCI of SVG were imputed into a dedicated clinical database. We assessed the clinical outcomes at a mean follow-up of 9.1+/-2.1 months. A total of 139 patients underwent PCI of SVG with DES and 84 patients with BMS. The mean age of the SVG was 7.6+/-3.8 years in the DES group and 7.7+/-2.8 years in the BMS group (P=0.38). Procedural success was achieved in all patients except for one patient in the BMS group who underwent emergent coronary artery bypass graft surgery for SVG dissection. There were no other in-hospital cardiac events in both groups. There was one cardiac death in the DES group and three deaths in the BMS group (P=0.03). When compared to the BMS, PCI of SVG with DES was associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 20.2%; P=0.04) and target vessel revascularization (10.1% vs. 36.9%; P=0.035). When compared with BMS, PCI of SVG with DES was associated with a lower incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.     

An unusual right-sided endocarditis: a case report of eustachian valve endocarditis

Thienopyridines and aspirin are beneficial in patients undergoing bare-metal stent implantation, and aspirin and clopidogrel treatment have also been proved effective after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. However, despite the common substitution of clopidogrel with ticlopidine because of cost or patient intolerance, there are no data on the comparison of ticlopidine vs. clopidogrel after DES implantation. We hereby compare ticlopidine vs. clopidogrel after paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in subjects enrolled in the prospective multicenter Taxus in Real-life Usage Evaluation (TRUE) Study. Across the 505 analyzed patients (112 treated with ticlopidine and 393 with clopidogrel), similar rates of early and mid-term (7 months) adverse thrombotic events were found with either antiplatelet regimen, with the notable exception of 2 cases of late stent thrombosis in patients who had prematurely withdrawn ticlopidine treatment just 3 months after the procedure. These findings thus support the overall safety and effectiveness of ticlopidine after DES implantation, and also confirm the increased risk of late thrombosis when premature withdrawal of thienopyridines occurs.     

Outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents for acute coronary syndrome in octogenarians

The number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed for octogenarians with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) continue to increase. The short- and long-term outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare metal stents (BMS) for ACS in octogenarians, however, remain largely unknown. We analyzed clinical outcomes of octogenarians undergoing IVUS-guided PCI for ACS with either DES or BMS. During the study period, a total of 776 patients with ACS underwent IVUS-guided PCI and 75 of them were octogenarians. In-hospital mortality tended to be lower in the DES group than in the BMS group. Between 6 months and 1 year of follow up, treatment with DES compared with BMS tended to result in fewer target lesion revascularizations. Major adverse cardiac events were similar between patients receiving DES and BMS. In octogenarians with ACS treated with IVUS-guided PCI, DES appears as safe as BMS, providing similar short- and long-term outcomes.     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents following successful PCI in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-Label StenT (GHOST) Registry

Background: The long‐term safety and effectiveness of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) beyond 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. Methods: We studied 674 NSTEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with DES (n = 323) or BMS (n = 351). The primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of death or nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST). Secondary end‐points included time to occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, defined as the composite of death, MI, ST, TVR). Results: The DES and BMS groups were well matched except that DES patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for a longer duration and had smaller final vessel diameter. In survival analysis, at a mean follow‐up of 1333 ± 659 days after PCI, the DES group had similar incidence of death/myocardial infarction (24% vs. 27%, log rank p = 0.23) and ST (4.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.18) as the BMS group. The DES patients had lower incidence of TVR (8.1% vs. 17%, p = 0.0018) but similar MACE (26% vs. 37%, p = 0.31). In multivariable analysis, DES vs. BMS implantation showed no significant impact on death/myocardial infarction [adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 1.0, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.7–1.4], ST (HR 1.7; CI 0.7 – 4.0), or MACE (HR 0.8; CI 0.6 – 1.1). However, TVR was lower in the DES group (HR 0.4; CI 0.3 – 0.7). Conclusion: In patients presenting with NSTEMI, DES implantation appears to be as safe as BMS implantation at long‐term follow‐up. In addition, DES are effective in reducing TVR compared to BMS. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:28–36)     

Antiplatelet therapy in the era of late stent thrombosis

Opinion statement Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the treatment of choice for obstructive coronary artery disease when percutaneous intervention is feasible. Although there are concerns regarding increased incidence of stent thrombosis, subsequent myocardial infarction, and death in patients receiving DES, careful analysis of large randomized trials has shown that risk of stent thrombosis with both bare metal stents (BMS) and DES is small. However, late stent thrombosis seems to occur more frequently with DES and seems to be closely associated with the discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a thienopyridine derivative (usually clopidogrel). Before placing a DES in a patient, the interventional cardiologist must ensure that there are no conditions under which a patient or physician may have to discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy within a year after stent placement. If the cardiologist anticipates premature discontinuation of thienopyridine and aspirin therapy, his or her alternative is to place a BMS or recommend bypass surgery. If a situation arises in which dual antiplatelet therapy may have to be interrupted (eg, emergency or semi-elective surgery), it is strongly recommended that the treating physician consult a cardiologist and follow published guidelines.     

Predictors and variability of drug‐eluting vs bare‐metal stent selection in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the PRISM study

Drug‐eluting stents (DES ) reduce risk of in‐stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI ) but require dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT ) for a longer term than bare‐metal stents (BMS ). Few studies have examined clinical predictors of DES vs BMS , and variability in provider selection between DES and BMS in clinical practice has not been well described. These insights can inform our understanding of current practice and may identify opportunities to improve decision‐making stent selection decinsion‐making. In a multicenter registry, 3295 consecutive patients underwent PCI by 158 interventional cardiologists across 10 US sites. Eighty percent of patients with treated with DES. Using hierarchical regression, diabetes mellitus, multivessel disease, health insurance, and white race were independently associated with greater DES use, whereas increasing age, history of hypertension, anticipated surgery, use of warfarin, lower hemoglobin, prior history of bleeding, and treatment of right coronary and left circumflex artery lesions as compared with PCI of left anterior descending artery were associated with lower likelihood of receiving DES . Adjusted rates of DES use across providers varied from 52.3% to 94.6%, and adjusted median odds ratio for DES selection was 1.69. DES selection appeared to reflect physicians’ attempts to balance benefits of DES against risks of prolonged DAPT . Nevertheless, marked residual variability in DES selection across providers persisted after adjusting for predictors of restenosis, bleeding, and other factors. Further studies are needed to better understand drivers of this variability and identify the impact of patient and provider preferences on stent selection at the time of PCI .