Stone GW， Parise H， Witzenbichler B， Kirtane A， Guagliumi G， Peruga JZ， Brodie BR， Dudek D， Möckel M， Lansky AJ， Mehran R.
    Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation， New York， New York 10022， USA. gs2184@columbia.edu
Abstract
    OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction most likely to benefit from drug-eluting stents (DES)， and to evaluate the impact of routine angiographic follow-up on the apparent differences between stent types.
    BACKGROUND: DES might have greatest utility in patients who would benefit most from their antirestenotic properties.
    METHODS: We randomly assigned 3，006 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or to bare-metal stents (BMS). Events were assessed at 12 months and 24 months， with a subset undergoing routine angiographic follow-up at 13 months. Using well-known risk factors for restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR)， risk groups were formed to examine the absolute differences between PES and BMS.
    RESULTS: Compared with BMS， PES reduced TLR at 12 months from 7.4% to 4.5% (p = 0.003). Insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio: 3.12)， reference vessel diameter ≤3.0 mm (hazard ratio: 2.89)， and lesion length ≥30 mm (hazard ratio: 2.49) were independent predictors of 12-month TLR after BMS. In patients with 2 or 3 of these baseline risk factors， PES compared with BMS markedly reduced 12-month TLR (19.8% vs. 8.1%， p = 0.003). In patients with 1 of these risk factors， the 12-month rates of TLR were modestly reduced by PES (7.3% vs. 4.3%， p = 0.02). The 12-month TLR rates were low and similar for both stents in patients with 0 risk factors (3.3% vs. 3.2%， p = 0.93). Routine 13-month angiographic follow-up resulted in a marked increase in TLR procedures (more so with BMS) so that the absolute incremental benefit of PES compared with BMS doubled from 2.9% at 12 months to 6.0% at 24 months， a difference evident in all risk strata.
    CONCLUSIONS: Patients at high risk for TLR after BMS in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction for whom DES are of greatest benefit may be identified. Conversely， DES may be of less clinical benefit for patients at lower risk for TLR after BMS. Routine angiographic follow-up increases the perceived clinical benefits of DES， and must be avoided to accurately estimate absolute treatment effects.