Coronary stent
Pro Research Analysisby 
Searched over 200M research papers for "coronary stent"
Consensus Meter
Coronary Stents: Efficacy, Cost-Effectiveness, and Future Directions
Introduction to Coronary Stents
Coronary stents are small, expandable tubes inserted into coronary arteries to keep them open and ensure adequate blood flow to the heart muscle. They are primarily used to treat ischemic heart disease (IHD), which includes conditions such as stable and unstable angina and myocardial infarction (MI). The use of stents has significantly increased over the past decades, becoming a common intervention in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs).
Efficacy of Coronary Stents vs. Balloon Angioplasty
Procedural Success and Restenosis Rates
Studies have shown that coronary stents have a higher procedural success rate compared to standard balloon angioplasty. For instance, one study reported a procedural success rate of 96.1% for stent placement versus 89.6% for balloon angioplasty. Additionally, stents result in a larger immediate increase in the diameter of the artery and a lower rate of restenosis at six months (31.6% vs. 42.1%). Another study found that stenting after successful angioplasty of chronic coronary occlusions significantly reduced restenosis rates (32% vs. 74%) and reocclusion rates (12% vs. 26%) compared to angioplasty alone.
Long-Term Outcomes
Long-term outcomes also favor stent implantation. Patients with stents have shown better angiographic and clinical results, with fewer instances of angina and a reduced need for target lesion revascularization. A meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials confirmed that routine stenting reduces restenosis rates compared to provisional stenting, although it does not significantly affect mortality or MI rates.
Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Stents
Economic Evaluations
Economic evaluations have demonstrated that stents are more effective than balloon angioplasty in preventing adverse events and the need for revascularizations. However, the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) varies. DES are generally not considered cost-effective for single-vessel disease due to their higher costs and marginal outcome benefits. In multiple-vessel disease, CABG may be more cost-effective in the long term despite higher initial costs.
Advances in Drug-Eluting Stents
Benefits and Risks
Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been a significant advancement in reducing restenosis rates. For example, paclitaxel-eluting stents have shown a substantial reduction in restenosis and neointimal hyperplasia compared to control stents. However, DES are associated with risks such as late stent thrombosis, necessitating prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy.
Future Directions
Ongoing research aims to develop better stent platforms, more biocompatible polymers, and novel anti-proliferative and anti-platelet drugs. There is also interest in pro-healing stents and bioresorbable scaffolds, which may offer improved long-term outcomes and reduced complications.
Conclusion
Coronary stents have revolutionized the treatment of coronary artery disease, offering higher procedural success rates and lower restenosis rates compared to balloon angioplasty. While drug-eluting stents provide additional benefits, their cost-effectiveness remains a topic of debate. Future research and technological advancements are expected to further enhance the efficacy and safety of coronary stents, potentially addressing current limitations and improving patient outcomes.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic