Meta‐analysis of drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in high bleeding risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions

Abstract Objectives To determine the efficacy and safety of drug‐eluting stents (DESs) and bare metal stents (BMSs) when used with short or tailored dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients. Background DES have been shown to reduce target lesion revascularization (TLR) as well as stent thrombosis (ST) compared to BMS in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, patients at HBR continue to receive BMS given the fear of bleeding or ST from premature discontinuation of DAPT in patients receiving DES. Methods We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials by performing systematic search for studies comparing DES with BMS in HBR patients using PUBMED, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central, reported until March 1, 2018. Results Three randomized controlled studies met the inclusion criteria with total of 4,460 patients; 50% received DES. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE); composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and TLR, at 1 year was significantly lower (RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.80) in DES group compared to BMS. This difference was primarily driven by lower TLR (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.35–0.61) in DES group. Definite or probable ST (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.32–1.08) and major (RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.74–1.20) bleeding were similar. Conclusions DES was associated with lower MACE without increased risk of bleeding or ST compared to BMS when used with short or tailored DAPT in patients with HBR.