Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Drug-eluting Versus Bare-metal Stents for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chronic Versus Acute Coronary Syndromes

New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) strongly reduce restenosis and repeat revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention. There is residual uncertainty as to whether other prognostically relevant outcomes are affected by DES versus BMS concerning initial presentation (chronic coronary syndrome [CCS] vs acute coronary syndrome [ACS]). We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing new-generation DES versus BMS (CRD42017060520). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI). Outcomes were examined at maximum follow-up and with a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 22,319 patients were included across 14 trials; 7,691 patients (34.5%) with CCS and 14,628 patients (65.5%) with ACS. We found evidence that new-generation DES versus BMS consistently reduced the risk of cardiac death or MI in both patients with CCS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, p <0.001) and ACS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92, p <0.001) (p-interaction = 0.931). This benefit was mainly driven by a similar reduction in the risk of MI (p-interaction = 0.898) for both subsets (HRCCS 0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; HRACS 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89). In CCS and ACS, we found a time-dependent treatment effect, with the benefit from DES accumulating during 1-year follow-up, without offsetting effects after that. In conclusion, patients with CCS were slightly underrepresented in comparative clinical trials. Still, they benefited similarly to patients with ACS from new-generation DES instead of BMS with a sustained reduction of cardiac death or MI because of lower event rates within 1 year.