Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2026
A Murine Model of Stent Implantation in the Carotid Artery for the Study of Restenosis
Published on: May 14, 2013
Multi-Link Vision stent vs. first-generation drug-eluting stents: systematic review and meta-analysis
L Testa1, R A Latini, S Pizzocri
1Interventional Cardiologist, Department of Interventional Cardiology, S. Ambrogio Clinical Institute, Milan, Italy. luctes@gmail.com
Background:
Since its introduction, the cobalt chromium alloy MULTI-LINK VISION stent (MLV) has been extensively investigated thus leading to the largest amount of data so far available for a bare metal stent. Aim and
Methods:
Systematic review and meta-analysis (according to Cochrane collaboration guidelines) aiming at summarizing the real world safety and efficacy of MLV stent. Endpoints of interest were: major adverse events [(MAE) combination of overall death and non-fatal myocardial infarction, MI], and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Rate of stent thrombosis was also assessed.
Results:
Eleven studies finally retrieved totalling 5539 patients [7 study registries, 4243 patients and 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MLV vs. first generation of drug-eluting stent (DES) (paclitaxel or sirolimus eluting), (RCTs) 1296 patients]. Across study registries, at a mean follow-up of 11.1 months, MLV was associated with a 5.3% risk of MAE, 3% of death, 2.3% of MI and a 9% of TVR. Risk of ST was 0.5%. Compared to first generation of DES in RCTs, at a mean follow-up of 10.5 months, MLV achieved similar results in terms of MAE, death and MI. On the other hand, MLV was associated with a double risk of TVR [OR 2.01 (1.34-3.01), P < 0.001, number needed to treat 18 (13-40)]. Overall, in stent late loss with MLV was 0.81 mm (±0.51), while the in segment late loss was 0.61 mm (±0.5). Risk of stent thrombosis was equivalent. Of note, performance of MLV in terms of safety, efficacy and risk of repeat revascularization was quite consistent across all the published studies, despite inherent differences in study design, clinical setting, complexity of the lesions and ethnicity.
Conclusion:
Compared to first-generation DES, MLV showed substantial equivalence with respect to hard clinical endpoints. Data are consistent in study registries and RCTs meaning that the overall performance of MLV is quite predictable and reproducible into the wide spectrum of clinical settings.
