Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Stenting With Drug-Eluting Stents Compared With Bare-Metal Stents

Background-Limited information is available on long-term outcomes for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease who received drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods and Results-In the multicenter registry evaluating outcomes among patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis undergoing stenting with either bare metal stents (BMS) or DES, 1217 consecutive patients were divided into 2 groups: 353 who received only BMS and 864 who received at least 1 DES. The 3-year outcomes were compared by use of the adjustment of inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted method. Patients receiving DES were older and had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and multivessel disease. In the overall population, with the use of DES, the 3-year adjusted risk of death (8.0% versus 9.5%; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 1.40; P=0.976) or death or myocardial infarction (14.3% versus 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.49 to 1.40; P=0.479) was similar compared with BMS. However, the risk of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower with the use of DES than BMS (5.4% versus 12.1%; hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.73; P=0.003). When patients were classified according to lesion location, DES was still associated with lower risk of target lesion revascularization in patients with bifurcation (6.9% versus 16.3%; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.78; P=0.009) or nonbifurcation (3.4% versus 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.88; P=0.024) lesions with a comparable risk of death or myocardial infarction. Conclusions-Compared with BMS, DES was associated with a reduction in the need for repeat revascularization without increasing the risk of death or myocardial infarction for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. (Circulation. 2009;120:400-407.)