BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials indicate that drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the rates of restenosis and need for subsequent revascularization procedures. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the performance of DES in a 'real world' setting comparing the outcomes of trial-eligible (on-label) versus ineligible (off-label) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. METHODS: From June 2002 to December 2007, 653 patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention exclusively using DES: 309 patients (309 stents) with on-label indications, and 344 patients (654 stents) with at least one off-label indication. Off-label indications were considered ejection fraction < 25%, multiple DES, chronic total occlusions, unprotected left main coronary artery, bifurcations, saphenous vein grafts, acute myocardial infarction, ostial or restenotic lesions. We evaluated in-hospital as well as late follow-up events. RESULTS: A high angiographic success, but with higher in-hospital myonecrosis (1.9% vs 5.2%; p = 0.02) and noreflow phenomenon (0% vs 1.5%; p = 0.04), was observed with off-label use; the incidence of death (0.3% vs 0.9%; p = 0.3) was not statistically different between groups. Data obtained from 80% of the patients over an average 23.2-month follow-up period showed a low incidence of major adverse cardiac events (8% vs. 8.1%; p = 0.5) and target vessel revascularization procedures (6.8% vs. 5.1%; p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Off-label implantation of DES is safe, with a low mortality rate. DES use in this complex cohort of patients does not confer a higher risk of late adverse cardiac events or repeat revascularizations when compared to on-label indications.
Drug eluting stents; Stents; Angioplasty, transluminal, percutaneous, coronary; Outcome assessment
