Use of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents after an acute coronary syndrome in Portugal: the EURHOBOP study.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The interventional cardiologist chooses a specific stent type based on the risk-benefit profile for each case. In general, drug-eluting stents should be considered in all clinical conditions, except if there are concerns or contraindications for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy. The aim of this work was to describe the use of bare-metal vs. drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after an acute coronary syndrome in Portuguese hospitals, according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics and institutional characteristics.


METHODS
Within the EURopean Hospital Benchmarking Processes (EURHOBOP) study, we retrospectively assessed 3009 consecutive patients in 10 Portuguese hospitals in 2009. Only patients with stents implanted during PCI (n=1194) were analyzed.


RESULTS
A total of 425 patients (36%) received a bare-metal stent and 769 patients (64%) received a drug-eluting stent. A history of previous PCI, current non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, anterior descending artery as the infarct-related artery and being initially admitted to a hospital with a catheterization laboratory were associated with drug-eluting stent implantation. Age under 45 or over 80, anemia and previous anticoagulation and/or atrial fibrillation were associated with bare-metal stent use.


CONCLUSIONS
Approximately two-thirds of patients received drug-eluting stents, which were less frequently implanted in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, aged over 80 years, female, with a previous history of stroke, anticoagulation and/or atrial fibrillation and anemia. Patients who had previously undergone PCI and those with the anterior descending artery as the infarct-related artery were more likely to receive a drug-eluting stent.