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。     

真实世界中延迟与急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗并置入药物洗脱支架对ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者远期预后的影响

目的比较延迟(12～72 h)与急诊(<12 h)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)并置入药物洗脱支架(DES)对ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者远期预后的影响。方法本研究为单中心回顾性观察随访研究。连续入选2013年于中国医学科学院阜外医院就诊并于发病后72 h内行PCI成功并置入DES的STEMI患者303例。根据PCI时机分为延迟PCI(12～72 h)77例和急诊PCI(<12 h)226例两组,随访2年。主要终点为主要不良心血管事件(MACE),包括心原性死亡、心肌梗死、明确或可能的支架血栓及缺血性卒中,次要终点为缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建。结果延迟PCI与急诊PCI两组间的2年MACE(9.1%比8.4%,P=0.85)和缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建(5.2%比4.4%,P=0.18)发生率均无显著性差异。对于梗死相关动脉完全闭塞的亚组患者,两组间的2年MACE(12.2%比8.4%,P=0.45)和缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建(7.3%比5.6%,P=0.71)发生率亦无显著性差异。校正两组主要基线特征,进行1∶1倾向性评分匹配分析显示,两组间的2年MACE(9.5%比8.1%,P=0.77)和缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建(5.4%比5.4%,P=1.00)发生率亦无显著性差异。结论本研究提示,延迟PCI与急诊PCI并置入DES对STEMI患者远期预后的影响无明显差异。因此,对于未能在最佳时间窗内行急诊PCI的STEMI患者,及时行延迟PCI并置入DES不失为一种积极的治疗选择。     

老年急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者应用国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架5年临床随访

目的评估老年急性ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)患者应用国产支架的长期安全性。方法入选年龄≥60岁的急性STEMI患者113例,随机分为国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架(DES)组56例和金属裸支架(BMS)组57例。随访5年,观察支架内血栓形成和主要心脏不良事件(MACE)发生率情况。结果 5年随访期间,DES组与BMS组病死率分别为7.1%和7.0%(P>0.05);DES组靶病变重建、MACE分别为10.7%、23.2%,BMS组分别为28.1%、42.1%(P<0.05)。DES组支架内血栓、极晚期支架内血栓发生率分别为8.9%、3.6%;BMS组分别为7.0%、1.8%,2组比较差异无统计学意义。结论老年急性STEMI患者应用国产雷帕霉素DES较BMS明显降低MACE,且极晚期血栓发生率无明显升高。     

国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架对急性心肌梗死的疗效观察

目的观察国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架(Partner)对急性心肌梗死(AMI)的临床疗效。方法将2005年5月至2006年8月天津武警医学院附属医院心内科116例AMI行急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者,依所置入支架不同,分为进口Cypher组(n=52)和国产Partner组(n=64)。观察两组患者住院及随访期间主要心脏不良事件(MACE)的发生和血管再狭窄情况。结果两组患者梗死相关动脉的分布差异无显著性意义。Cypher组置入支架55枚,Partner组置入支架64枚。所有患者急诊PCI手术均成功,住院及随访期间无MACE发生。Cypher组11例(21.15%)、Partner组18例(28.13%)完成了6个月冠脉造影随访,再狭窄率均为0。结论国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架应用于AMI治疗安全、有效。     

西罗莫司洗脱支架在老年急性心肌梗死血管长病变中的安全性和有效性

目的 评价老年ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)患者经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)中置入国产西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)治疗靶血管长病变的安全性和有效性.方法 连续入选就诊于北京安贞医院抢救中心进行急诊PCI的STEMI患者.所有资料均前瞻性录入数据库,常规进行随访.筛选梗死相关血管长病变部位串联置入2枚以上国产SES的老年患者为研究对象,置入单个国产SES的老年患者作为对照组进行回顾性分析.安全性分析指标为住院及随访6个月期间的死亡、心肌梗死和血栓发生率.临床分析指标为靶病变血管重建率.结果 775例STEMI患者中,老年患者62例,累计64处梗死相关血管病变处串联置入2枚以上国产SES(长病变组),187例老年患者置入单个支架(对照组),两组患者一般临床情况比较差异无统计学意义.长病变组患者平均置入2.2枚支架,平均病变长度(45.3±10.4)mm,支架长度(52.2±11.0)mm.随访6个月,长病变组和对照组的血栓发生率分别为1.6%和1.1%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).两组患者均无死亡发生.长病变组的支架内再狭窄率和靶病变血管重建率高于对照组,分别为8.1%和4.8%与6.9%和3.7%,但差异无统计学意义(均为P>0.05).结论 老年患者直接PCI过程中串联置入国产SES治疗靶血管长病变未产生不良后果,短期安全性良好.     

ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者使用药物支架的临床结果分析

目的:评价ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者置入西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)与金属裸支架(BMS)的围手术期和手术后中期临床预后的差异。方法:因STEMI接受择期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)并置入支架治疗的258例,分为SES组和BMS组。记录患者住院期和随访期内临床资料,比较2组主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)的发生率及无事件生存率。结果:2组基线情况、术前术后的用药和随访时间、成功率等均差异无统计学意义。在住院期和随防期内,2组总的MACCE发生率差异无统计学意义,其中死亡、再次心肌梗死、卒中和再次血管重建的发生率也均差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。2组随访期内的无事件生存率也差异无统计学意义(89.3%∶87.7%,P>0.05)。结论:STEMI患者PCI时置入SES安全有效,住院期与中期不良事件发生率极低。STEMI置入SES对患者不良事件的长期影响还有待研究。     

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．O％，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。     

国产药物洗脱支架对急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者的疗效观察

目的探讨国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架Firebird在急性ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)患者急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中应用的安全性和有效性。方法选择STEMI且在发病12h内接受急诊置入Firebird支架的患者96例,记录住院期间、术后9个月时不良心脏事件(MACE)的发生率。结果96处梗死相关病变置入150枚Firebird支架,支架置入成功率为100%,介入治疗后血流TIMI3级86例(89.6%),无复流现象3例,其中术中死亡1例;心脏破裂死亡2例;早期支架内血栓形成2例,其中死亡1例。住院期间MACE发生率为5.2%(5/96),PCI临床成功率为86.5%(83/96)。对82例患者进行了6～24个月的随访,平均(9.6±3.4)个月,因心力衰竭死亡2例,随访时MACE发生率2.4%(2/82)。结论国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架Firebird在STEMI急诊PCI中应用安全有效。     

替罗非班对急性STEMI患者行PCI治疗远期预后的影响

目的探讨替罗非班对急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者急诊经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗远期预后的影响。方法回顾性分析2013年3月~2015年12月于陕西省宝鸡市中医医院收治的156例采用急诊PCI治疗的急性STEMI患者,以在PCI术中是否使用替罗非班将其分为观察组与对照组,各78例;观察比较两组患者在住院及随访期间发生主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的情况。结果两组患者在PCI术中发生慢血流、术后达到TIMI(心肌梗死溶栓试验)血流及MBG(心肌灌注分级)Ⅲ级以及心电图ST段回落50%等指标差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者在住院期间MACE发生率、死亡率、非致死性心肌梗死率以及计划外再次血运重建发生率等指标差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);观察组患者在住院期间心功能不全发生率低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);观察组患者在随访期间MACE发生率、计划外再次血运重建率以及因心脏原因再次住院率均低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05),而两组间的死亡率及非致死性心肌梗死发生率的差异无统计学意义(P0.05);Cox回归分析表明使用替罗非班可显著降低急性STEMI患者的远期MACE发生率(P0.05)。结论替罗非班具有较好的改善急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者急诊介入治疗术后远期预后的潜在作用。     

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.     

可降解涂层与不可降解涂层雷帕霉素洗脱支架在急性心肌梗死直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的疗效比较

目的 比较可降解涂层雷帕霉素洗脱支架(Excel)与不可降解涂层雷帕霉素洗脱支架(Cypher Select)在急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的有效性和安全性.方法 连续入选的228例急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者随机分至Cypher组(113例)和Excel组(115例).主要终点为术后12个月主要不良心脏事件(包括死亡、心肌梗死和靶血管重建),次要终点为9个月晚期管腔丢失和支架再狭窄.结果 术后9个月Cypher组和Excel组分别有43例(38.1%)和48例(42.1%)患者接受冠状动脉造影随访,两组支架内晚期管腔丢失[(0.17±0.26)mm比(0.18±0.33)mm,P=0.483]、节段内晚期管腔丢失[(0.19±0.36)mm比(0.20±0.42)mm,P=0.419)和支架内再狭窄(2.3%比2.1%,P=0.937)、节段内再狭窄(4.7%比6.3%,P=0.738)的发生率差异无统计学意义.术后12个月Cypher组和Excel组死亡(3.5%比2.6%,P=0.692)、心肌梗死(1.8%比2.6%,P=0.658)、靶血管重建(1.8%比2.6%,P=0.658)、主要不良心脏事件(5.3%比6.1%,P=0.788)及支架内血栓形成(4.4%比3.5%,P=0.724)的发生率差异无统计学意义.结论 可降解涂层与不可降解涂层雷帕霉素洗脱支架在直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死中的近期疗效和安全性可能是一致的,其远期效果有待进一步研究.     

不同药物洗脱支架四年临床结果比较

目的 观察雷帕霉素与紫杉醇药物洗脱支架(DES)置入后再狭窄率、支架内血栓形成及4年临床结果.方法 回顾性分析2003年1-10月连续237例置入DES患者6个月再狭窄率与靶病变重建率(TLR)、4年随访主要不良心脏事件(MACE)、靶血管重建(TVR)和支架血栓形成的发生率.结果 雷帕霉素组与紫杉醇组比较,6个月两组TLR、支架内再狭窄、MACE、心肌梗死差异均无统计学意义,但后者有更高的晚期管腔丢失(P=0.022).4年免于TVR生存率分别为88.97%与82.28%(P=0.127),免于MACE生存率分别为83.8%与79.2%(P=0.056).多变量分析每个病变置入支架数(P=0.001)和糖尿病(P=0.001)与TVR相关,多支病变(P=0.0013)和糖尿病(P:0.0001)与MACE相关.4年总的支架内血栓发生率(1.47%与1.98%)无统计学意义,肯定的很可能的和可能的支架内血栓形成两组之间也无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 两种药物洗脱支架均具有较好的安全性和临床近、远期效果,但紫杉醇洗脱支架晚期管腔丢失较多.     

国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架在老年急性心肌梗死患者中的应用与研究

目的评估老年ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)患者应用国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架(Firebird)和金属裸支架(BMS)的安全性和有效性。方法入选1年中≥60岁的STEMI患者113例,随机分为Firebird组56例,BMS组57例。本研究一级终点是6个月的靶病变晚期管腔丢失,次要终点包括6个月的支架内血栓形成和主要心脏不良事件。结果6个月随访期中,Firebird组和BMS组的6个月造影随访率分别为62.5%和64.9%。Firebird组死亡、靶血管重建、主要心脏不良事件分别为3.6%、3.6%7、.2%;BMS组则分别为3.5%、28.1%、33.3%,两组各有1例亚急性血栓形成。Firebird组和BMS组的平均晚期管腔丢失分别是(0.19±0.33)mm和(0.73±0.73)mm。结论老年STEMI患者应用Firebird比用BMS可降低6个月的靶血管重建和主要心脏不良事件,且急性、亚急性支架内血栓发生率低。     

Clinical results of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with drug eluting stents (DES) versus a matched control group of patients with STEMI treated with bare metal stents (BMS). METHODS: This registry included 122 patients with STEMI undergoing primary coronary angioplasty with DES implantation at our institution. The control group consisted of 506 patients implanted with BMS, who were matched for age, infarct location, and diabetic status. The incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR) and stent thrombosis were assessed up to 12 months. RESULTS: Twelve months follow up showed a non-significant trend towards reduced deaths (3.3% versus 7.1%, P=0.1), significantly reduced recurrent MI (0.0% versus 6.1%, P=0.02), TVR (5.7% versus 15.2%, P=0.006) and TLR (2.5% versus 14.0%, P=0.004) events in the DES group as compared to BMS group. The composite incidences of MACE at 12 months follow-up was lower in the DES group (11.5%) as compared to the BMS group (21.3%, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: According to our experiences, the use of DES in STEMI is safe and effective as compared to BMS. DES was effective in reducing the incidence of restenosis outcomes and overall adverse cardiac events up to 12 months.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

Recently, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the rate of adverse events among selected patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). We present real-world experience from a single center registry evaluating the safety and efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected patients with STEMI using SES. Clinical outcome at 300-day follow-up in two cohorts of 225 consecutive patients who underwent bare metal stent (BMS) (January 2004-February 2005, n = 123) or SES (March 2005-December 2006, n = 102) implantation was examined. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, nonfatal reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). The incidence of short-term MACE was similar between the SES group and BMS group (30-day rate of MACE: 4.9% versus 8.9%, P = 0.30). Angiographically documented stent thrombosis within 30 days after primary PCI was not diagnosed in any patient in the SES group and occurred in 1 patient treated with BMS (0 versus 0.8%, P = 1.0). At 300 days, SES implantation significantly reduced the incidence of MACE (7.8% versus 22.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.71], P = 0.005), mainly due to a marked reduction in the risk of TVR (1.0% versus 17.1%, HR 0.05 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.39], P < 0.001). There was no new onset of documented stent thrombosis between 30 and 300 days in either group. Thus, this real-world registry confirmed the safety and efficacy of SES with remarkably lower rates of TVR and MACE in the setting of primary PCI for unselected patients with STEMI in a real-world scenario.     

西罗莫司和紫杉醇洗脱支架治疗支架内再狭窄的临床近期及10个月疗效

目的比较西罗莫司洗脱支架（Cypher或Cypher select）和紫杉醇洗脱支架（TAXUS）治疗支架内再狭窄的临床近期及10个月疗效。方法自2002年12月至2005年3月,对253例支架内再狭窄的患者采用了药物洗脱支架（DES）治疗并完成了10个月的临床随访和冠状动脉造影复查。253例中男性218例,女性35例,年龄30～80岁,平均年龄57．2岁。结果253例（262处病变）中152例使用Cypher支架176个,101例使用TAXUS支架132个。使用的Cypher和TAXUS支架的平均直径分别为（2．96±0．27）mm和（3．05±0,35）mm,P=0．04,平均长度分别为（23.31±6．68）mm和（23．56±6．54）mm,P=0．745。支架内再狭窄表现为100％闭塞29处,≥90％狭窄143处,〈90％狭窄90处。病变类型为A、B1、B2和C型各为9处、45处、73处和135处。PCI的成功率两组均为100％,住院期间无死亡,Cypher组主要心脏不良事件（MACE）发生率为2．63％,TAXUS组为2．97％,P=0．872。10个月临床造影显示在Cypher支架和TAXUS支架组中造影再狭窄率分别为14．0％和29．4％,P=0．075,MACE发生率分别为6．7％和16．0％,P=0．031。结论应用Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗支架内再狭窄有良好的近期临床疗效,10个月疗效Cypher支架优于TAXUS支架。     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in ST elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-label Stent (GHOST) Registry

Background: Multiple randomized trials and observational studies have shown drug‐eluting stents (DES) to be safe and effective at 3‐year follow‐up in stent thrombosis (ST)‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, outcomes data beyond 3–4 years after DES implantation are sparse. Methods: We studied 554 STEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with either DES or bare metal stent (BMS). Primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of ST and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary end‐points were time to occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and discrete events that comprise MACE (death, MI, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcomes of the DES and BMS groups were assessed by survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Results: There were 205 (37%) patients who received DES and 349 (63%) patients who received BMS. At a median follow‐up of 41.4 months after PCI, there were no differences in the unadjusted incidence of ST (ST, 3.4 vs. 4.3%, log‐rank P = 0.61) and MI (6.8% vs. 8%, P = 0.61) between DES versus BMS groups, respectively. However, DES implantation was associated with lower unadjusted incidence of death or MI (11% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.0002), MACE (16% vs. 34%, P < 0.0001), death (6.3% vs. 17%, P = 0.0004), and TVR (9.8% vs. 18%, P = 0.008) than BMS implantation. In multivariable analyses, DES implantation was associated with significantly lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR = 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31–0.76], P = 0.0007) than BMS implantation. Conclusion: In our study of STEMI patients, DES implantation was safer than BMS implantation and was associated with lower MACE at long‐term follow‐up. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:118–125)     

Comparison of long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following implantation of bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents in aorto-ostial lesions

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to aorto-ostial (AO) lesions is technically demanding and associated with high revascularization rates. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes after bare metal stent (BMS) compared to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation after PCI to AO lesions. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of all consecutive patients who underwent PCI to AO lesions at 2 centers. Angiographic and clinical outcomes in 230 patients with DES from September 2000 to December 2009 were compared to a historical control group of 116 patients with BMS. Comparison of the baseline demographics showed more diabetics (32% vs 16%, p = 0.001), lower ejection fractions (52.3 ± 9.7% vs 55.0 ± 11.5%, p = 0.022), longer stents (17.55 ± 7.76 vs 14.37 ± 5.60 mm, p <0.001), and smaller final stent minimum luminal diameters (3.43 ± 0.53 vs 3.66 ± 0.63 mm, p = 0.001) in the DES versus BMS group. Angiographic follow-up (DES 68%, BMS 66%) showed lower restenosis rates with DES (20% vs 47%, p <0.001). At clinical follow-up, target lesion revascularization rates were lowest with DES (12% vs 27%, p = 0.001). Cox regression analysis with propensity score adjustment for baseline differences suggested that DES were associated with a reduction in target lesion revascularization (hazard ratios 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.52, p <0.001) and major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.79, p = 0.003). There was a nonsignificantly higher incidence of Academic Research Consortium definite and probable stent thrombosis with DES (n = 9 [4%] vs n = 1 [1%], p = 0.131). In conclusion, despite differences in baseline characteristics favoring the BMS group, PCI with DES in AO lesions was associated with improved outcomes, with lower restenosis, revascularization, and major adverse cardiac event rates.