Sripal Bangalore

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes With Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Coronary Stents A Mixed-Treatment Comparison Analysis of 117 762 Patient-Years of Follow-Up From Randomized Trials

Background— Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been in clinical use for nearly a decade; however, the relative short- and long-term efficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less well defined. Methods and Results— PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2012, that compared any of the Food and Drug Administration–approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES], paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES], everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent [ZES], and ZES-Resolute [ZES-R]) with each other or against BMS for de novo coronary lesions, enrolling at least 100 patients and with follow-up of at least 6 months. Short-term (⩽1 year) and long-term efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis) outcomes were evaluated and trial-level data pooled by both mixed-treatment comparison and direct comparison analyses. From 76 randomized clinical trials with 117 762 patient-years of follow-up, compared with BMS, each DES reduced long-term target-vessel revascularization (39%–61%), but the magnitude varied by DES type (EES∼SES∼ZES-R>PES∼ZES>BMS), with a >42% probability that EES had the lowest target-vessel revascularization rate. There was no increase in the risk of any long-term safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis, with any DES (versus BMS). In addition, there was reduction in myocardial infarction (all DES except PES versus BMS) and stent thrombosis (with EES versus BMS: Rate ratio, 0.51; 95% credibility interval, 0.35–0.73). The safest DES appeared to be EES (>86% probability), with reduction in myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis compared with BMS. Short-term outcomes were similar to long-term outcomes, with SES, ZES-R, and everolimus-eluting stent being the most efficacious and EES being the safest stent. Conclusions— DES are highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target-vessel revascularization without an increase in any safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis. However, among the DES types, there were considerable differences, such that EES, SES, and ZES-R were the most efficacious and EES was the safest stent.Background— Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been in clinical use for nearly a decade; however, the relative short- and long-term efficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less well defined. Methods and Results— PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2012, that compared any of the Food and Drug Administration–approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES], paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES], everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent [ZES], and ZES-Resolute [ZES-R]) with each other or against BMS for de novo coronary lesions, enrolling at least 100 patients and with follow-up of at least 6 months. Short-term (≤1 year) and long-term efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis) outcomes were evaluated and trial-level data pooled by both mixed-treatment comparison and direct comparison analyses. From 76 randomized clinical trials with 117 762 patient-years of follow-up, compared with BMS, each DES reduced long-term target-vessel revascularization (39%–61%), but the magnitude varied by DES type (EES∼SES∼ZES-R>PES∼ZES>BMS), with a >42% probability that EES had the lowest target-vessel revascularization rate. There was no increase in the risk of any long-term safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis, with any DES (versus BMS). In addition, there was reduction in myocardial infarction (all DES except PES versus BMS) and stent thrombosis (with EES versus BMS: Rate ratio, 0.51; 95% credibility interval, 0.35–0.73). The safest DES appeared to be EES (>86% probability), with reduction in myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis compared with BMS. Short-term outcomes were similar to long-term outcomes, with SES, ZES-R, and everolimus-eluting stent being the most efficacious and EES being the safest stent. Conclusions— DES are highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target-vessel revascularization without an increase in any safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis. However, among the DES types, there were considerable differences, such that EES, SES, and ZES-R were the most efficacious and EES was the safest stent. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-141}

Perioperative β blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines on perioperative assessment recommend perioperative beta blockers for non-cardiac surgery, although results of some clinical trials seem not to support this recommendation. We aimed to critically review the evidence to assess the use of perioperative beta blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery. METHODS We searched Pubmed and Embase for randomised controlled trials investigating the use of beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery. We extracted data for 30-day all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, heart failure, and myocardial ischaemia, safety outcomes of perioperative bradycardia, hypotension, and bronchospasm. FINDINGS 33 trials included 12 306 patients. beta blockers were not associated with any significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure, but were associated with a decrease (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.79) in non-fatal myocardial infarction (number needed to treat [NNT] 63) and decrease (OR 0.36, 0.26-0.50) in myocardial ischaemia (NNT 16) at the expense of an increase (OR 2.01, 1.27-3.68) in non-fatal strokes (number needed to harm [NNH] 293). The beneficial effects were driven mainly by trials with high risk of bias. For the safety outcomes, beta blockers were associated with a high risk of perioperative bradycardia requiring treatment (NNH 22), and perioperative hypotension requiring treatment (NNH 17). We recorded no increased risk of bronchospasm. INTERPRETATION Evidence does not support the use of beta-blocker therapy for the prevention of perioperative clinical outcomes in patients having non-cardiac surgery. The ACC/AHA guidelines committee should soften their advocacy for this intervention until conclusive evidence is available.

Blood pressure targets in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus/impaired fasting glucose: observations from traditional and bayesian random-effects meta-analyses of randomized trials.

Background— Most guidelines for treatment of hypertension recommend a blood pressure (BP) goal of <140/90 mm Hg, and a more aggressive goal of <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes mellitus. However, in the recent Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, a lower BP was not beneficial. The optimal BP target in subjects with diabetes mellitus or those with impaired fasting glucose/glucose tolerance is therefore not well defined. Methods and Results— We performed PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL searches for randomized clinical trials from 1965 through October 2010 of antihypertensive therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired fasting glucose/impaired glucose tolerance that enrolled at least 100 patients with achieved systolic BP of ⩽135 mm Hg in the intensive BP control group and ⩽140 mm Hg in the standard BP control group, had a follow-up of at least 1 year, and evaluated macrovascular or microvascular events. We identified 13 randomized clinical trials enrolling 37 736 participants. Intensive BP control was associated with a 10% reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 0.98), a 17% reduction in stroke, and a 20% increase in serious adverse effects, but with similar outcomes for other macrovascular and microvascular (cardiac, renal, and retinal) events compared with standard BP control. The results were similar in a sensitivity analysis using a bayesian random-effects model. More intensive BP control (⩽130 mm Hg) was associated with a greater reduction in stroke, but did not reduce other events. Meta–regression analysis showed continued risk reduction for stroke to a systolic BP of <120 mm Hg. However, at levels <130 mm Hg, there was a 40% increase in serious adverse events with no benefit for other outcomes. Conclusions— The present body of evidence suggests that in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus/impaired fasting glucose/impaired glucose tolerance, a systolic BP treatment goal of 130 to 135 mm Hg is acceptable. However, with more aggressive goals (<130 mm Hg), we observed target organ heterogeneity in that the risk of stroke continued to fall, but there was no benefit regarding the risk of other macrovascular or microvascular (cardiac, renal and retinal) events, and the risk of serious adverse events even increased.

β-Blocker use and clinical outcomes in stable outpatients with and without coronary artery disease.

CONTEXT β-Blockers remain the standard of care after a myocardial infarction (MI). However, the benefit of β-blocker use in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI, those with a remote history of MI, and those with only risk factors for CAD is unclear. OBJECTIVE To assess the association of β-blocker use with cardiovascular events in stable patients with a prior history of MI, in those with CAD but no history of MI, and in those with only risk factors for CAD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Longitudinal, observational study of patients in the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry who were divided into 3 cohorts: known prior MI (n = 14,043), known CAD without MI (n = 12,012), or those with CAD risk factors only (n = 18,653). Propensity score matching was used for the primary analyses. The last follow-up data collection was April 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. The secondary outcome was the primary outcome plus hospitalization for atherothrombotic events or a revascularization procedure. RESULTS Among the 44,708 patients, 21,860 were included in the propensity score-matched analysis. With a median follow-up of 44 months (interquartile range, 35-45 months), event rates were not significantly different in patients with β-blocker use compared with those without β-blocker use for any of the outcomes tested, even in the prior MI cohort (489 [16.93%] vs 532 [18.60%], respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .14). In the CAD without MI cohort, the associated event rates were not significantly different in those with β-blocker use for the primary outcome (391 [12.94%]) vs without β-blocker use (405 [13.55%]) (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.79-1.08]; P = .31), with higher rates for the secondary outcome (1101 [30.59%] vs 1002 [27.84%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.27]; P = .01) and for the tertiary outcome of hospitalization (870 [24.17%] vs 773 [21.48%]; OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.04-1.30]; P = .01). In the cohort with CAD risk factors only, the event rates were higher for the primary outcome with β-blocker use (467 [14.22%]) vs without β-blocker use (403 [12.11%]) (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.02-1.36]; P = .02), for the secondary outcome (870 [22.01%] vs 797 [20.17%]; OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.24]; P = .04) but not for the tertiary outcomes of MI (89 [2.82%] vs 68 [2.00%]; HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.97-1.90]; P = .08) and stroke (210 [6.55%] vs 168 [5.12%]; HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.99-1.52]; P = .06). However, in those with recent MI (≤1 year), β-blocker use was associated with a lower incidence of the secondary outcome (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64-0.92]). CONCLUSION In this observational study of patients with either CAD risk factors only, known prior MI, or known CAD without MI, the use of β-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events.

J-curve revisited: an analysis of blood pressure and cardiovascular events in the Treating to New Targets (TNT) Trial

AIM In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), a J-curve relationship has been reported between blood pressure (BP) and future cardiovascular events. However, this is controversial. The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between on-treatment BP and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS We evaluated 10 001 patients with CAD and a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level <130 mg/dL, randomized to atorvastatin 80 vs. 10 mg, enrolled in the TNT trial. The post-baseline, time-dependent BPs [systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)] were categorized into 10 mmHg increments. The primary outcome was a composite of death from coronary disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), resuscitated cardiac arrest, and fatal or non-fatal stroke. Among the 10 001 patients, 982 (9.82%) experienced a primary outcome at 4.9 years (median) of follow-up. The relationship between SBP or DBP and primary outcome followed a J-curve with increased event rates above and below the reference BP range, both unadjusted and adjusted (for baseline covariates, treatment effect, and LDL levels). A time-dependent, non-linear, multivariate Cox proportional hazard model identified a nadir of 146.3/81.4 mmHg where the event rate was lowest. A similar non-linear relationship with a higher risk of events at lower pressures was found for most of the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal MI, or angina. However, for the outcome of stroke, lower was better for SBP. CONCLUSION In patients with CAD, a low BP (<110-120/<60-70 mmHg) portends an increased risk of future cardiovascular events (except stroke).

Blood Pressure Targets in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus/Impaired Fasting Glucose

Background— Most guidelines for treatment of hypertension recommend a blood pressure (BP) goal of <140/90 mm Hg, and a more aggressive goal of <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes mellitus. However, in the recent Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, a lower BP was not beneficial. The optimal BP target in subjects with diabetes mellitus or those with impaired fasting glucose/glucose tolerance is therefore not well defined. Methods and Results— We performed PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL searches for randomized clinical trials from 1965 through October 2010 of antihypertensive therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired fasting glucose/impaired glucose tolerance that enrolled at least 100 patients with achieved systolic BP of ⩽135 mm Hg in the intensive BP control group and ⩽140 mm Hg in the standard BP control group, had a follow-up of at least 1 year, and evaluated macrovascular or microvascular events. We identified 13 randomized clinical trials enrolling 37 736 participants. Intensive BP control was associated with a 10% reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 0.98), a 17% reduction in stroke, and a 20% increase in serious adverse effects, but with similar outcomes for other macrovascular and microvascular (cardiac, renal, and retinal) events compared with standard BP control. The results were similar in a sensitivity analysis using a bayesian random-effects model. More intensive BP control (⩽130 mm Hg) was associated with a greater reduction in stroke, but did not reduce other events. Meta–regression analysis showed continued risk reduction for stroke to a systolic BP of <120 mm Hg. However, at levels <130 mm Hg, there was a 40% increase in serious adverse events with no benefit for other outcomes. Conclusions— The present body of evidence suggests that in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus/impaired fasting glucose/impaired glucose tolerance, a systolic BP treatment goal of 130 to 135 mm Hg is acceptable. However, with more aggressive goals (<130 mm Hg), we observed target organ heterogeneity in that the risk of stroke continued to fall, but there was no benefit regarding the risk of other macrovascular or microvascular (cardiac, renal and retinal) events, and the risk of serious adverse events even increased.

Antihypertensive drugs and risk of cancer: network meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of 324 168 participants from randomised trials

BACKGROUND The risk of cancer from antihypertensive drugs has been much debated, with a recent analysis showing increased risk with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). We assessed the association between antihypertensive drugs and cancer risk in a comprehensive analysis of data from randomised clinical trials. METHODS We undertook traditional direct comparison meta-analyses, multiple comparisons (network) meta-analyses, and trial sequential analyses. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1950, to August, 2010, for randomised clinical trials of antihypertensive therapy (ARBs, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors [ACEi], β blockers, calcium-channel blockers [CCBs], or diuretics) with follow-up of at least 1 year. Our primary outcomes were cancer and cancer-related deaths. FINDINGS We identified 70 randomised controlled trials (148 comparator groups) with 324,168 participants. In the network meta-analysis (fixed-effect model), we recorded no difference in the risk of cancer with ARBs (proportion with cancer 2·04%; odds ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·93-1·09), ACEi (2·03%; 1·00, 0·92-1·09), β blockers (1·97%; 0·97, 0·88-1·07), CCBs (2·11%; 1·05, 0·96-1·13), diuretics (2·02%; 1·00, 0·90-1·11), or other controls (1·95%, 0·97, 0·74-1·24) versus placebo (2·02%). There was an increased risk with the combination of ACEi plus ARBs (2·30%, 1·14, 1·02-1·28); however, this risk was not apparent in the random-effects model (odds ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·92-1·38). No differences were detected in cancer-related mortality for ARBs (death rate 1·33%; odds ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·87-1·15), ACEi (1·25%; 0·95, 0·81-1·10), β blockers (1·23%; 0·93, 0·80-1·08), CCBs (1·27%; 0·96, 0·82-1·11), diuretics (1·30%; 0·98, 0·84-1·13), other controls (1·43%; 1·08, 0·78-1·46), and ACEi plus ARBs (1·45%; 1·10, 0·90-1·32). In direct comparison meta-analyses, similar results were recorded for all antihypertensive classes, except for an increased risk of cancer with ACEi and ARB combination (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·04-1·24; p=0·004) and with CCBs (1·06, 1·01-1·12; p=0·02). However, we noted no significant differences in cancer-related mortality. On the basis of trial sequential analysis, our results suggest no evidence of even a 5-10% relative risk (RR) increase of cancer and cancer-related deaths with any individual class of antihypertensive drugs studied. However, for the ACEi and ARB combination, the cumulative Z curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary, suggesting firm evidence for at least a 10% RR increase in cancer risk. INTERPRETATION Our analysis refutes a 5·0-10·0% relative increase in the risk of cancer or cancer-related death with the use of ARBs, ACEi, β blockers, diuretics, and CCBs. However, increased risk of cancer with the combination of ACEi and ARBs cannot be ruled out.

Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents with those of bare metal stents and durable polymer drug eluting stents. Design Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of 258 544 patient years of follow-up from randomized trials. Data sources and study selection PubMed, Embase, and Central were searched for randomized trials comparing any of the Food and Drug Administration approved durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting, platinum chromium everolimus eluting, zotarolimus eluting-Endeavor, and zotarolimus eluting-Resolute) or biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents, with each other or against bare metal stents. Outcomes Long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis). Landmark analysis at more than one year was evaluated to assess the potential late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents. Results From 126 randomized trials and 258 544 patient years of follow-up, for long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization), biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.66, 95% credibility interval 0.57 to 0.78) and zotarolimus eluting stent-Endeavor (0.69, 0.56 to 0.84) but not to newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (for example: 1.03, 0.89 to 1.21 versus cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents). Similarly, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.61, 0.37 to 0.89) but inferior to cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (2.04, 1.27 to 3.35) for long term safety (definite stent thrombosis). In the landmark analysis after one year, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to sirolimus eluting stents for definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.29, 0.10 to 0.82) but were associated with increased mortality compared with cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (1.52, 1.02 to 2.22). Overall, among all stent types, the newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (zotarolimus eluting stent-Resolute, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, and platinum chromium everolimus eluting stents) were the most efficacious (lowest target vessel revascularization rate) stents, and cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents were the safest with significant reductions in definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.35, 0.21 to 0.53), myocardial infarction (0.65, 0.55 to 0.75), and death (0.72, 0.58 to 0.90) compared with bare metal stents. Conclusions Biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents are superior to first generation durable polymer drug eluting stents but not to newer generation durable polymer stents in reducing target vessel revascularization. Newer generation durable polymer stents, and especially cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, have the best combination of efficacy and safety. The utility of biodegradable polymer stents in the context of excellent clinical outcomes with newer generation durable polymer stents needs to be proven.

Relation of beta-blocker-induced heart rate lowering and cardioprotection in hypertension.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of heart rate reduction with beta-blockers on the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension. BACKGROUND Resting heart rate has been shown to be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the general population and in patients with heart disease such as hypertension, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Conversely, pharmacological reduction of heart rate is beneficial for patients with heart disease. However, the role of pharmacological reduction of heart rate using beta-blockers in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension is not known. METHODS We conducted a MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL database search of studies from 1966 to May 2008. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension with follow-up for at least 1 year and with data on heart rate. We extracted the baseline characteristics, the blood pressure response, heart rate at the baseline and end of trial, and cardiovascular outcomes from each trial. RESULTS Of 22 randomized controlled trials evaluating beta-blockers for hypertension, 9 studies reported heart rate data. The 9 studies evaluated 34,096 patients taking beta-blockers against 30,139 patients taking other antihypertensive agents and 3,987 patients receiving placebo. Paradoxically, a lower heart rate (as attained in the beta-blocker group at study end) was associated with a greater risk for the end points of all-cause mortality (r = -0.51; p < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (r = -0.61; p < 0.0001), myocardial infarction (r = -0.85; p < 0.0001), stroke (r = -0.20; p = 0.06), or heart failure (r = -0.64; p < 0.0001). The same was true when the heart rate difference between the 2 treatment modalities at the end of the study was compared with the relative risk reduction for cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to patients with myocardial infarction and heart failure, beta-blocker-associated reduction in heart rate increased the risk of cardiovascular events and death for hypertensive patients.

Outcomes with various drug eluting or bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: mixed treatment comparison analysis of 22 844 patient years of follow-up from randomised trials

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of currently used drug eluting stents compared with each other and compared with bare metal stents in patients with diabetes. Design Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Data sources and study selection PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for randomised clinical trials, until April 2012, of four durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting stents, paclitaxel eluting stents, everolimus eluting stents, and zotarolimus eluting stents) compared with each other or with bare metal stents for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions and enrolling at least 50 patients with diabetes. Primary outcomes Efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis). Results From 42 trials with 22 844 patient years of follow-up, when compared with bare metal stents (reference rate ratio 1) all of the currently used drug eluting stents were associated with a significant reduction in target vessel revascularisation (37% to 69%), though the efficacy varied with the type of stent (everolimus eluting stents∼sirolimus eluting stents>paclitaxel eluting stents∼zotarolimus eluting stent>bare metal stents). There was about an 87% probability that everolimus eluting stents were the most efficacious compared with all others, though there were limited usable data for the zotarolimus eluting Resolute stent in patients with diabetes. Moreover, there was no increased risk of any safety outcome (including very late stent thrombosis) with any drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents. There was about a 62% probability that the everolimus eluting stent was the safest stent for the outcome of “any” stent thrombosis. Conclusions Among patients with diabetes treated with coronary stents all currently available drug eluting stents were efficacious without compromising safety compared with bare metal stents. There were relative differences among the drug eluting stents, such that the everolimus eluting stent was the most efficacious and safe.