Opinion - (2025) Volume 9, Issue 1
Received: 01-Jan-2025, Manuscript No. jigc-25-172241;
Editor assigned: 03-Jan-2025, Pre QC No. P-172241;
Reviewed: 17-Jan-2025, QC No. Q-172241;
Revised: 22-Jan-2025, Manuscript No. R-172241;
Published:
29-Jan-2025
, DOI: 10.37421/2684-4591.2025.8.299
Citation: Roberts, Emily K.. ”DES Evolution: Superior Outcomes, Expanding Utility.” J Interv Gen Cardiol 09 (2025):299.
Copyright: © 2025 Roberts K. Emily This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that everolimus-eluting stents with ultrathin struts demonstrate superior clinical outcomes compared to first-generation drug-eluting stents. Patients receiving these newer stents experienced a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. The ultrathin strut design appears to contribute to better long-term safety and efficacy[1].
This scoping review provides an overview of bioresorbable scaffolds and drug-eluting stents in coronary artery disease management. It highlights that while traditional drug-eluting stents remain the gold standard, bioresorbable scaffolds represent a promising alternative, particularly for younger patients, due to their ability to restore vessel vasomotion and eliminate the permanent metallic cage after drug release. Continued research is essential to fully understand their long-term benefits[2].
This paper explores the advancements in polymer-free and biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents. It emphasizes that these novel designs aim to mitigate issues associated with permanent polymers, such as chronic inflammation and late stent thrombosis. While challenges remain in optimizing drug release kinetics and mechanical integrity, these newer generation stents hold potential for improved biocompatibility and long-term outcomes, particularly for patients at high risk[3].
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. The findings indicate that drug-eluting stents are generally safe and effective in this challenging patient population, showing better outcomes compared to bare-metal stents. However, patients with diabetes still face a higher risk of adverse events compared to non-diabetic individuals, underscoring the need for tailored treatment strategies[4].
This meta-analysis investigated the long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents in treating coronary bifurcation lesions, which are anatomically complex. The study suggests that modern drug-eluting stents provide favorable long-term clinical results for these lesions, with acceptable rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis. The choice of stenting technique for bifurcations, however, continues to be debated and warrants individualized assessment[5].
This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in small coronary vessels, a subset of patients traditionally associated with higher rates of restenosis. The findings indicate that drug-eluting stents offer superior outcomes compared to bare-metal stents in these small vessels, significantly reducing target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiac events. This suggests improved prognosis for patients with small vessel disease when treated with DES[6].
This study evaluated the outcomes of ultrathin strut everolimus-eluting stents in long coronary lesions, which pose a significant challenge in interventional cardiology. The results demonstrate that these stents are associated with favorable clinical outcomes, including low rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis, even in complex long lesions. This evidence supports their efficacy and safety in managing extensive coronary artery disease[7].
This review provides an update on fourth-generation drug-eluting stents, discussing their current evidence and future perspectives. These advanced stents, characterized by improved polymer technologies and anti-proliferative drugs, show enhanced safety profiles and comparable or superior efficacy to earlier generations. The article anticipates further innovations focusing on bioresorbable properties and advanced imaging integration to optimize patient care[8].
This study compares revascularization strategies for left main coronary artery disease, specifically drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The findings highlight that while CABG remains a robust option, drug-eluting stents offer a viable alternative for selected patients, particularly those with less complex lesions. The decision between DES and CABG requires careful consideration of individual patient characteristics and anatomical complexity[9].
This comprehensive meta-analysis evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. The results demonstrate consistently excellent long-term clinical outcomes, including low rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis, establishing these stents as a highly safe and effective treatment option for coronary artery disease. The ultrathin strut design appears to be a key factor in these superior long-term results[10].
The landscape of coronary artery disease management continues to evolve, seeing new developments in stent technology. A current perspective outlines that while traditional drug-eluting stents maintain their status as the gold standard, bioresorbable scaffolds offer a promising alternative. These scaffolds are particularly beneficial for younger patients, as they can restore vessel vasomotion and eventually eliminate the permanent metallic structure after drug release [2]. Continued research is essential to fully understand their long-term benefits. Complementing this, an update on fourth-generation drug-eluting stents reveals their enhanced safety profiles and comparable or superior efficacy compared to earlier generations. These advanced stents leverage improved polymer technologies and anti-proliferative drugs, with future innovations expected to focus on bioresorbable properties and advanced imaging integration for optimized patient care [8]. Further advancements include polymer-free and biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents. These novel designs aim to alleviate issues associated with permanent polymers, such as chronic inflammation and late stent thrombosis [3]. Despite challenges in optimizing drug release kinetics and mechanical integrity, these newer generation stents show considerable potential for improved biocompatibility and long-term outcomes, especially for patients at high risk.
A significant body of evidence supports the effectiveness of ultrathin strut everolimus-eluting stents. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses consistently show that these stents deliver superior clinical outcomes compared to first-generation drug-eluting stents [1]. Patients fitted with these newer stents experience a notably lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. The ultrathin strut design appears to be a key factor in their better long-term safety and efficacy [1]. This is further reinforced by a comprehensive meta-analysis evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents with ultrathin struts, which reported consistently excellent long-term clinical outcomes, including low rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis [10]. These findings establish these stents as a highly safe and effective treatment option for coronary artery disease, with the ultrathin strut design contributing significantly to their superior long-term results. Moreover, even in challenging long coronary lesions, ultrathin strut everolimus-eluting stents have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes, including low rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis. This evidence confirms their efficacy and safety in managing extensive and complex coronary artery disease [7].
The utility of drug-eluting stents has also been specifically assessed in challenging patient demographics. For individuals with diabetes mellitus, a population known for higher risks, drug-eluting stents are generally found to be safe and effective, offering better outcomes than bare-metal stents [4]. However, a crucial point is that diabetic patients still confront a higher risk of adverse events compared to non-diabetic individuals, emphasizing the necessity for tailored treatment strategies. Similarly, in cases involving small coronary vessels, which are traditionally associated with elevated rates of restenosis, drug-eluting stents provide superior outcomes relative to bare-metal stents. They significantly reduce target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiac events, thereby improving the prognosis for patients with small vessel disease treated with DES [6].
Addressing anatomically complex lesions and overall revascularization strategies is another critical area. For coronary bifurcation lesions, a meta-analysis indicated that modern drug-eluting stents yield favorable long-term clinical results, with acceptable rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis [5]. The selection of the optimal stenting technique for bifurcations, however, remains an area of ongoing debate, necessitating individualized assessment based on patient specifics. Furthermore, in considering revascularization for left main coronary artery disease, a comparison between drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) highlights that while CABG is a robust option, DES serve as a viable alternative for selected patients, particularly those with less complex lesions [9]. The decision between DES and CABG ultimately requires careful consideration of individual patient characteristics and the anatomical complexity of the disease.
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at
Journal of Interventional and General Cardiology received 11 citations as per Google Scholar report
