Drug-eluting Stents: Evolving Standard, Improving Outcome

Ahmed Zahrani^*
*Correspondence: Ahmed Zahrani, Department of Cardiology, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Email:

Introduction

This meta-analysis critically compares bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) against drug-eluting stents (DES) for coronary artery disease. It highlights that while BRS offer potential long-term benefits of vascular restoration, current evidence suggests a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis compared to DES, reaffirming DES as the current standard for most revascularization procedures [1].

This article offers a broad overview of the drug-eluting stent landscape, tracing its evolution and forecasting future advancements. It discusses how improvements in stent platforms, polymer technology, and drug formulations have significantly enhanced safety and efficacy, setting the stage for further innovation in cardiovascular intervention [2].

The review focuses on polymer-free drug-eluting stents, evaluating their clinical performance. It suggests that by eliminating durable polymers, these stents may reduce chronic inflammation and improve long-term vessel healing, potentially offering advantages, particularly for patients with a high risk of bleeding or those requiring shorter dual antiplatelet therapy [3].

This study examines the long-term clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents in patients facing severe calcified coronary lesions. It concludes that despite the challenges posed by calcification, DES implantation, when combined with appropriate lesion preparation techniques, can lead to favorable and durable results in this high-risk patient subgroup [4].

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients, a population known for poorer cardiovascular outcomes. The findings indicate that while diabetes poses unique challenges, contemporary DES provide generally good clinical outcomes, though ongoing research into diabetes-specific stent technologies and antiplatelet strategies is warranted [5].

This article reviews the current state of both bioresorbable scaffolds and drug-eluting stents. It contrasts their properties and clinical applications, highlighting that despite the theoretical advantages of full bioresorption, DES remain the predominant and most extensively validated option for percutaneous coronary intervention due to their established safety and efficacy profiles [6].

The study evaluates the long-term outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease, a particularly high-risk indication. It provides evidence that DES offer a viable and effective revascularization strategy for selected patients, demonstrating favorable long-term safety and efficacy comparable to surgical options in specific cohorts [7].

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the critical question of optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after drug-eluting stent implantation. The analysis suggests that with modern DES, a shorter DAPT duration (e.g., 6 months) may be sufficient for many patients, effectively balancing the reduction of ischemic events with a lower risk of bleeding complications [8].

Tracing two decades of clinical experience, this review chronicles the evolution of drug-eluting stents. It highlights the technological leaps from first-generation devices to current sophisticated platforms, emphasizing how continuous improvements in stent design, polymer characteristics, and drug delivery have dramatically improved patient outcomes in percutaneous coronary interventions [9].

This review evaluates the evidence for using drug-eluting stents in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes who also carry a high bleeding risk. It concludes that careful selection of stent type and individualized antiplatelet regimens can optimize clinical outcomes by mitigating both ischemic and bleeding complications, offering a balanced approach for these challenging patients [10].

Description

Coronary artery disease treatment has been revolutionized by the continuous development of drug-eluting stents (DES). These advanced devices represent the current standard for revascularization procedures, a position solidified by extensive clinical evidence. A critical area of research involves comparing DES with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS). While BRS theoretically offer the long-term benefit of vascular restoration and vessel naturalization, clinical meta-analyses consistently highlight that DES demonstrate superior outcomes. Specifically, DES are associated with a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis when compared to BRS, underscoring their established safety and efficacy profiles [1, 6]. This robust performance of DES has maintained their role as the predominant and most extensively validated option for percutaneous coronary intervention, despite ongoing interest in the potential of fully bioresorbable devices.

The journey of drug-eluting stents spans two decades of clinical experience, marked by substantial technological leaps. This evolution includes significant improvements in stent platforms, the polymers used for drug release, and the formulations of the drugs themselves. These continuous enhancements have dramatically improved patient outcomes in percutaneous coronary interventions, moving from first-generation devices to highly sophisticated current platforms [2, 9]. The ongoing development in these areas is crucial for shaping future advancements in cardiovascular intervention, promising even greater safety and efficacy. A notable innovation within this evolving landscape is the development of polymer-free drug-eluting stents. By eliminating durable polymers, these stents aim to reduce chronic inflammation and foster improved long-term vessel healing. Such an approach offers potential advantages, particularly for patient populations identified with a high risk of bleeding or those who may require a shorter duration of dual antiplatelet therapy, streamlining post-procedure care [3].

The utility of drug-eluting stents is not limited to straightforward cases; they have proven remarkably effective in managing coronary artery disease across various challenging patient subgroups. For instance, in patients presenting with severe calcified coronary lesions, a particularly complex anatomical challenge, DES implantation can lead to favorable and durable long-term clinical outcomes. This success is heavily reliant on the application of appropriate lesion preparation techniques that address the calcification effectively [4]. Furthermore, for diabetic patients, a population often associated with poorer cardiovascular outcomes and unique therapeutic considerations, contemporary DES provide generally good clinical outcomes. However, research into diabetes-specific stent technologies and tailored antiplatelet strategies remains warranted to further optimize care in this vulnerable group [5]. The application of DES also extends to high-risk indications such as unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Studies provide compelling evidence that DES offer a viable and effective revascularization strategy for selected patients, demonstrating favorable long-term safety and efficacy that can be comparable to surgical options in specific cohorts [7].

Beyond the device itself, the optimization of post-implantation therapy plays a pivotal role in maximizing the benefits of DES. A crucial area of discussion is the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following DES implantation. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, synthesizing a vast body of randomized controlled trials, suggest that with modern DES, a shorter DAPT duration, for example, six months, may be sufficient for many patients [8]. This approach aims to effectively balance the reduction of ischemic events against a lower risk of bleeding complications, offering a more tailored and safer regimen. This careful consideration of risk-benefit is particularly pertinent for patients who present with acute coronary syndromes and concomitantly carry a high bleeding risk. For these challenging cases, evidence indicates that a careful selection of the stent type combined with individualized antiplatelet regimens can significantly optimize clinical outcomes by judiciously mitigating both ischemic and bleeding complications, thus offering a balanced and effective therapeutic approach [10].

Overall, the comprehensive management of coronary artery disease with drug-eluting stents involves not only continuous innovation in stent technology but also a deep understanding of patient-specific factors and optimal post-procedural care. From the initial comparison with other devices to tailored approaches for complex lesions and high-risk patients, the field consistently strives for improved, personalized outcomes.

Conclusion

The field of coronary artery disease management heavily relies on drug-eluting stents (DES), which have undergone substantial evolution over the past two decades, leading to significant improvements in patient outcomes. Current meta-analyses consistently reaffirm DES as the standard treatment, often outperforming bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) by demonstrating a lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events and stent thrombosis, despite BRS's potential for vascular restoration. Advances in DES technology span stent platforms, polymer compositions, and drug delivery, continuously enhancing their safety and efficacy. Innovative polymer-free DES are emerging, aiming to mitigate chronic inflammation and improve vessel healing, which could be particularly beneficial for patients prone to bleeding or requiring shorter dual antiplatelet therapy. DES prove effective in challenging clinical scenarios, such as treating severe calcified coronary lesions when coupled with precise preparation techniques, and in managing coronary artery disease in diabetic patients, a demographic prone to poorer cardiovascular outcomes. Their utility extends to high-risk revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery disease, where they show long-term safety and efficacy comparable to surgical interventions. Furthermore, optimizing post-implantation care is a key focus, with evidence suggesting that shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy (around six months) may be adequate for many patients receiving modern DES, effectively balancing the prevention of ischemic events against bleeding complications. This careful consideration also applies to patients with acute coronary syndromes who present a high bleeding risk, necessitating tailored stent and antiplatelet strategies to achieve the best possible outcomes. The continuous refinement of DES technology and associated therapeutic approaches underscores their critical role in contemporary cardiovascular intervention.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Lihua G, Fang T and Liang S. "Bioresorbable scaffolds drug-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" J Cardiovasc Transl Res 16 (2023):1098-1110.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

2. Rüdiger AB, Michael J and Fernando A. "Current and future perspectives on drug-eluting stents" Circulation 143 (2021):1038-1050.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

3. Ron W, Shigeru S and Donald SB. "Polymer-free drug-eluting stents: A comprehensive review of recent clinical trials" J Invasive Cardiol 32 (2020):15-22.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

4. Yonghong D, Weiyi C and Min D. "Long-term clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in patients with severe calcified coronary lesions" Front Cardiovasc Med 10 (2023):1191566.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

5. Jian X, Lehou H and Yinghao Z. "Clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents for coronary artery disease in diabetic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis" J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 22 (2021):343-351.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

6. Tsubasa K, Takashi A and Mitsunori I. "Current status of bioresorbable scaffolds and drug-eluting stents" J Clin Med 11 (2022):4297.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

7. Fei C, Pufan Z and Chang C. "Long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease".Cardiovasc Ther 38 (2020):e12502.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

8. Byung-Kyu K, Pil HH, Donghoon C. "Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" JACC Cardiovasc Interv 13 (2020):2621-2633.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

9. Patrick WS, Yuki K and Scot G. "The evolution of drug-eluting stents: 20 years of clinical experience" Eur Heart J 42 (2021):918-932.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

10. Tiziano P, Giacomo B, Marianna C. "Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and High Bleeding Risk: A Review of the Evidence".J Clin Med 12 (2023):1187.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at