Comparison of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents for stable coronary artery disease
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 22, 2026

A Murine Model of Stent Implantation in the Carotid Artery for the Study of Restenosis
Published on: May 14, 2013
Brian Horst1, Charanjit S Rihal, David R Holmes
1Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
Insights
Drug-eluting stents (DES) show superiority over bare-metal stents (BMS) for stable angina patients within one year. However, this benefit diminishes with longer follow-up, necessitating further research for sustained efficacy and safety.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alleviates angina symptoms.
- PCI's impact on reducing myocardial infarction or mortality in stable angina remains unproven.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with stable angina.
- To evaluate the long-term outcomes of DES compared to BMS.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of prospective data from patients meeting COURAGE study criteria.
- Comparison of BMS versus DES implantation.
- Primary outcome: composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization.
Main Results:
- One-year primary event rate was significantly lower with DES (15%) versus BMS (27%, p < 0.001).
- Adjusted 1-year hazard ratio favored DES (0.51, p < 0.001).
- Longer follow-up revealed increased event rates in DES patients, leading to nonsignificant comparisons.
Conclusions:
- DES demonstrate superior outcomes to BMS in stable coronary disease patients at one year.
- The incremental benefit of DES decreases over extended follow-up periods.
- Further research is required to optimize long-term DES efficacy and safety.
Objectives:
The current study was designed to determine whether drug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with stable angina.
Background:
Percutaneous coronary intervention has been shown to decrease symptoms of angina; its use for stable angina has not been shown to reduce myocardial infarction or mortality.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of prospective data comparing the use of BMS versus DES in patients who met criteria used by the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) study investigators. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization on follow-up.
Results:
The 1-year primary event rate was 15% in the DES group (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11% to 18%), compared with 27% in the BMS group (95% CI: 23% to 31%, p < 0.001). A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to adjust for differences in patient characteristics and showed a 1-year DES hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.36 to 0.71, p < 0.001). After 1 year, event rates for the primary outcome increased in DES subjects relative to BMS patients, such that longer follow-up analyses resulted in nonsignificant comparisons.
Conclusions:
These results suggest that the use of DES for patients with stable coronary disease is superior to BMS for 1 year, but that the increment in benefit decreased over continued follow-up. Further research is necessary to identify additional factors to promote longer-term efficacy and safety of DES.
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome II: Pathophysiology and Clinical Manifestations
Angina IV: Management
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
