Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Accounting for the mortality benefit of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: a comparison of methods in a retrospective cohort study

  • Robert W Yeh1Email author,
  • Malini Chandra2,
  • Charles E McCulloch3 and
  • Alan S Go2
BMC Medicine20119:78

DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-78

Received: 20 April 2011

Accepted: 24 June 2011

Published: 24 June 2011

Abstract

Background

Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce rates of restenosis compared with bare metal stents (BMS). A number of observational studies have also found lower rates of mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction with DES compared with BMS, findings not observed in randomized clinical trials. In order to explore reasons for this discrepancy, we compared outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES or BMS by multiple statistical methods.

Methods

We compared short-term rates of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction for patients undergoing PCI with DES or BMS using propensity-score adjustment, propensity-score matching, and a stent-era comparison in a large, integrated health system between 1998 and 2007. For the propensity-score adjustment and stent era comparisons, we used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association of stent type with outcomes. We used McNemar's Chi-square test to compare outcomes for propensity-score matching.

Results

Between 1998 and 2007, 35,438 PCIs with stenting were performed among health plan members (53.9% DES and 46.1% BMS). After propensity-score adjustment, DES was associated with significantly lower rates of death at 30 days (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.63, P < 0.001) and one year (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49 - 0.68, P < 0.001), and a lower rate of myocardial infarction at one year (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 - 0.87, P < 0.001). Thirty day and one year mortality were also lower with DES after propensity-score matching. However, a stent era comparison, which eliminates potential confounding by indication, showed no difference in death or myocardial infarction for DES and BMS, similar to results from randomized trials.

Conclusions

Although propensity-score methods suggested a mortality benefit with DES, consistent with prior observational studies, a stent era comparison failed to support this conclusion. Unobserved factors influencing stent selection in observational studies likely account for the observed mortality benefit of DES not seen in randomized clinical trials.

Background

The comparison of alternative treatments has long been a primary mission of both randomized trials and observational studies. With the commitment of $1.1 billion in support of comparative effectiveness research in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the number of studies comparing different drugs, devices, techniques and systems will undoubtedly increase dramatically [1]. While randomized clinical trials are likely to remain the gold standard for comparing alternative treatments, observational studies should continue to have significant, if not leading, roles in comparative effectiveness research moving forward, particularly in light of recommendations to prioritize assessments of community-based interventions within populations traditionally underrepresented in clinical trials [2].

However, observational studies are subject to a number of limitations, foremost among them the potential for unmeasured variables that confound results. While a number of methods directed at assessing causal effects and eliminating confounding have been developed, few clinical studies describe reasons for the specific choice of method used, and fewer present multiple methods to help corroborate findings[3, 4].

Observational studies comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have consistently shown lower mortality and myocardial infarction associated with DES [520], findings not seen in randomized clinical trials [2127]. We applied three common methods to compare DES to BMS within a large observational study population to: 1) determine whether mortality benefit for DES was observed in our study population and 2) to identify potential challenges to the application of these methods to compare treatments in the presence of strong treatment selection.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective dynamic cohort study within Kaiser Permanente of Northern California (KPNC), a large integrated healthcare delivery system caring for > 3.2 million individuals that are broadly representative of the local surrounding and statewide population[28]. All health plan members aged 30 years and older between January 1998 and the end of December 2007 were considered eligible. The study was reviewed by the institutional review board of the Kaiser Division of Research, and requirement for informed consent was waived due to the nature of the study. From this cohort, we identified all PCI procedures using either DES or BMS based on relevant International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes that occurred within health plan and non-health plan hospitals [29]. Consecutive procedures occurring within 7 days of one another were considered part of the same clinical episode. Procedures in which both DES and BMS were used were excluded from the analysis.

Patient characteristics and coexisting illnesses

Patient demographic information was obtained from health plan electronic databases. Relevant ICD-9 or CPT codes found in hospital discharge databases during the eight years before the procedure date were used to identify prior cardiovascular disease including prior myocardial infarction, prior angina, prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, history of ischemic stroke and peripheral arterial disease. Prior chronic heart failure was determined based on a validated algorithm using information from hospitalization, outpatient and emergency department diagnostic codes[30].

Relevant data sources were searched for cardiovascular risk factors. Diabetes mellitus was identified from a validated longitudinal Diabetes Registry relying on inpatient and outpatient diabetes diagnoses, receipt of anti-diabetic therapies, and abnormal glycosylated hemoglobin or blood glucose levels [31]. Hypertension was based on serial ambulatory diagnoses or the combination of diagnoses and receipt of anti-hypertensive medications. Chronic lung disease, systemic malignancy, and history of gastrointestinal bleeding were determined based on validated methods [2935]. The presence and severity of chronic kidney disease was ascertained using the abbreviated four-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation for estimated glomerular filtration rate based on most recent outpatient determination of serum creatinine within the previous 24 months before the year examined[33].

Medication usage

Prior observational studies comparing outcomes for DES and BMS have not included the chronic outpatient use of cardioprotective medications, an important potential confounder [6, 19, 36]. Outpatient medication use within 30 days before PCI was ascertained from health plan pharmacy records for therapies known to lower cardiovascular risk, including beta-blockers [37], angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs),[38] statins [39], and thienopyridines [40]. Outpatient warfarin use was also assessed. More than 90% of patients had a drug benefit that provided strong financial incentives to obtain medications from health plan pharmacies.

Primary outcomes

Death from any cause occurring within thirty days and one year after the procedure was identified from health plan administrative databases, proxy information, Social Security Administration vital status files, and California state death certificate information[41, 42]. Subsequent hospitalized myocardial infarction based on ICD-9-CM codes (primary discharge diagnosis coded as 410.x1) within one year was also identified.

Statistical analysis

Three separate methods were used to compare outcomes after DES and BMS: 1) statistical adjustment based on propensity score decile, 2) propensity-score matching, and 3) a stent era comparison, in which outcomes before and after the introduction of DES in 2003 were compared.

Method 1: propensity-score adjustment

Because patients were not eligible to receive DES until after April of 2003, only PCI procedures after this date were included in the propensity score methods. A non-parsimonious logistic regression model was used to generate propensity scores for the likelihood of receiving DES based on 23 demographic and clinical variables. Propensity score deciles were created, and logistic regression was performed modeling the association of DES with outcomes, adjusted for propensity score decile (categorical variable) as well as the complete set of patient covariates. To accommodate data from individuals who may have undergone multiple procedures during the study period, robust standard errors accounting for clustering by patient were used.

Method 2: propensity-score matching

In the second method, one-to-one nearest neighbor matching was performed to compare outcomes after DES and BMS in patients undergoing PCI after April 2003. Caliper width was set at 0.0001 using the STATA program psmatch2 (Leuven and Sianesi, 2003) [43]. Adequacy of the match was assessed by estimating the standardized differences between DES and BMS patients for all variables. Outcomes were compared between groups using the McNemar's Chi-square test for matched comparisons.

Method 3: stent era comparison

Because DES was not available before 2003 and from 2004 onward DES was used in the vast majority of cases, a comparison of outcomes of PCI prior to and after DES introduction serves as a useful surrogate for assessing the impact of DES (Figure 1) [4, 36, 44]. Procedures between January 1998 and March 2003 were assigned to the 'BMS era', while those between April 2003 and December 2007 were assigned to the 'DES era'. This variable would be expected to be strongly associated with treatment assignment, and less prone to unmeasured confounding by stent indication. Logistic regression was then performed to determine the association of stent era with outcomes, adjusted for all assessed covariates.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1741-7015-9-78/MediaObjects/12916_2011_Article_426_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Rates of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting and bare metal stents between 1998-2007, per 100,000 person-years. All stents prior to April 2003 were bare metal, and 88.3% of stents after April 2003 were drug-eluting.

Analyses were performed using STATA (Stata Corp. 2008. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10, College Station, TX: StataCorp LP). A two-sided P value of < 0.05 was considered significant for all analyses.

Results

A total of 35,438 PCIs with stent placement between January 1998 and December 2007 were included. Of these, 19,103 (53.9%) utilized DES and 16,335 (46.1%) utilized BMS. Patients receiving DES were significantly different than those receiving BMS in nearly all baseline characteristics, including having significantly higher rates of hypertensions, diabetes, and congestive heart failure (Table 1). DES patients also had lower rates of presentation with ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 30 days prior to PCI, and were more likely to be receiving outpatient cardioprotective medications including statins, beta-blockers and thienopyridines. Crude-mortality was significantly higher at thirty days (2.2% versus 1.6%, P < .001) and one year (5.1% versus 4.6%, P = 0.04) after PCI with BMS compared to DES. The rate of myocardial infarction at one year was 4.7% after BMS and 4.3% after DES (P = 0.06).
Table 1

Characteristics of Patients Undergoing PCI by Stent Type, 1998-2007

 

Drug-Eluting Stent

Bare Metal Stent

PValue

N

19,103

16,335

 

Age (years)

64.1

63.2

< 0.001

Male Sex (%)

70.8

70.6

0.72

Race/Ethnicity (%)

  

< 0.001

   Asian

9.8

7.0

 

   Black

5.3

5.3

 

   Hispanic

9.4

8.4

 

   White, non-Hispanic

65.8

72.1

 

   Other

9.7

7.3

 

Comorbidities (%)

   

   Diabetes

33.8

26.2

< 0.001

   Hypertension

68.5

49.6

< 0.001

   Prior MI

13.0

11.1

< 0.001

   PCI Indication:

  

< 0.001

STEMI

16.0

27.5

 

NSTEMI

28.0

19.3

 

Stable or unstable angina

57.3

54.8

 

   Prior PCI

19.1

14.1

< 0.001

   Prior CABG

5.7

5.3

0.12

   Congestive Heart Failure

4.6

3.4

< 0.001

   Prior Stroke

1.6

1.2

0.005

   Peripheral Arterial Disease

4.3

3.3

< 0.001

   Glomerular Filtration Rate

  

< 0.001

> 90

15.0

16.2

 

60 - 89

39.7

33.4

 

30 - 59

21.5

15.2

 

15 - 30

1.9

1.3

 

< 15 or HD

0.7

0.5

 

Unknown

21.1

33.3

 

   Systemic Malignancy

5.7

5.8

0.75

   Prior Gastrointestinal Bleeding

2.3

1.8

< 0.001

   Chronic Lung Disease

18.3

21.9

< 0.001

Medications

   

   β-Blockers

50.0

40.1

< 0.001

   Clopidogrel

12.7

6.3

< 0.001

   Statin

51.7

34.8

< 0.001

   ACE-I/ARB

41.9

27.8

< 0.001

   Warfarin

3.8

3.0

< 0.001

Abbreviations: MI, myocardial infarction; STEMI, ST-elevation myocardial infarction; NSTEMI, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Patients receiving BMS after April 2003 were markedly different than those receiving BMS before April 2003, having higher rates of hypertension (65.0% versus 46.8%, P < 0.001), congestive heart failure (4.3% versus 3.2%, P = 0.008), prior PCI (9.3% versus 5.6%, P < 0.001), systemic malignancy (9.3% versus 5.2%, P < 0.001) and prior gastrointestinal bleeding requiring hospitalization (3.0% versus 1.7%, P < 0.001). Crude-mortality at thirty days and one year and myocardial infarction at one year after PCI were significantly higher in patients receiving BMS after April 2003 compared those receiving BMS before 2003 (Figure 2).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1741-7015-9-78/MediaObjects/12916_2011_Article_426_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Unadjusted outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting versus bare metal stents for the overall cohort are shown in A. Outcomes after PCI with bare metal stents before and after April 2003 (B). Patients receiving bare metal stents after April 2003 have significantly worse unadjusted outcomes compared to those receiving bare metal stents before April 2003.

Association between stent type and outcomes by analytical method

After propensity-score adjustment, DES was associated with significantly lower mortality at thirty days (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.63, P < 0.001) and one year (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49 - 0.68, P < 0.001), as well as a lower rate of myocardial infarction at one year (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 - 0.87, P < 0.001). After 1:1 propensity-score matching (n = 4,126), DES was again associated with significantly lower mortality at thirty days (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 - 0.85, P = 0.005), and at one year (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 - 0.92, P = 0.01). Myocardial infarction at one year was similar (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 - 1.25, P = 0.67). All standardized differences between groups were < 10%, suggesting an adequate match (Table 2). In the stent era comparison, no differences in mortality were seen when comparing the DES era versus BMS era at thirty days (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 - 1.10, P = 0.39) or one year (0.92, 95% CI 0.82 - 1.02, P = 0.12), or in the rate of myocardial infarction at one year (OR 0.92, 0.82 - 1.03, P = 0.16) (Figure 3).
Table 2

Standardized Differences Between BMS and DES Patients Before and After Matching, April 1, 2003 - December 31, 2007

 

Standardized Difference Prior to Match

Standardized Difference Post Match

N

(2,518 BMS, 19,101 DES)

(2,063 BMS, 2,063 DES)

Age (years)

-8.3

1.9

Male Sex (%)

-1.7

-6.2

Race/Ethnicity

-11.3

-5.8

Comorbidities (%)

  

   Diabetes

9.1

3.5

   Hypertension

7.5

-3.2

   Prior MI

2.7

4.7

   PCI Indication:

-21.6

0.2

   Prior PCI

6.1

6.1

   Prior CABG

2.5

2.5

   Congestive Heart Failure

3.8

3.8

   Prior Stroke

0.0

0.0

   Peripheral Arterial Disease

1.9

1.9

   Glomerular Filtration Rate

0.3

0.3

   Systemic Malignancy

-13.4

0.4

   Prior Gastrointestinal Bleeding

-4.2

-0.6

   Chronic Lung Disease

-0.3

7.8

Medications

  

   β-Blockers

11.9

-1.1

   Clopidogrel

8.9

3.4

   Statin

12.3

5.3

   ACE-I/ARB

9.2

4.1

   Warfarin

1.0

3.1

Abbreviations: MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1741-7015-9-78/MediaObjects/12916_2011_Article_426_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Association between stent type and 30-day and 1-year mortality, and myocardial infarction at 1 year using different analystical methods. Results are for (A) propensity-score adjustment; (B) 1:1 propensity score matching; and (C) a stent era comparison. The stent era comparison gives results most consistent with findings from randomized clinical trials.

Discussion

We have shown that after the introduction of drug-eluting stents, bare metal stents were reserved for patients with significant comorbidities and high mortality rates. Commonly used propensity-score methods continued to suggest a mortality benefit to DES, while a stent era comparison showed no significant differences in all outcomes for DES and BMS, similar to results from randomized clinical trials.

A number of prior observational studies comparing DES to BMS have suggested reductions in mortality and myocardial infarction associated with DES, the majority of which have utilized propensity-score methods to mitigate potential confounding [520]. However, data from randomized trials have not corroborated these findings [2127]. In a meta-analysis of 22 randomized trials and 34 observational studies, Kirtane et al found no differences in mortality or myocardial infarction in randomized trials, but consistent reductions for both outcomes in observational studies, and attributed these differences, at least in part, to residual confounding by unmeasured differences between patients receiving BMS and DES [23]. Our results are consistent with this conclusion. In our cohort, patients who received BMS after April 2003 had significantly greater comorbidities and unadjusted death and myocardial infarction rates compared to patients who received BMS before this date, suggesting that physicians selectively reserved BMS for a sicker population of patients after DES was introduced. While propensity-score adjustment and matching both attempt to account for such differences, they only account for variables that are assessed. In the presence of such a high degree of patient selection, any residual confounding in this case is likely to lead to the appearance of improved outcomes with DES, as was seen in this study. While propensity scores have been put forward as a method which overcomes some of the limitations of traditional logistic regression, they do not address a primary threat to the validity of such studies - unmeasured confounding.

A comparison of the BMS era (100% BMS) to the DES era (88.3% DES) as a surrogate for a BMS-DES comparison eliminates the unwanted influence of patient selection [45]. Consistent with this, the stent era comparison showed no differences in mortality or myocardial infarction between BMS and DES, most closely approximating results seen in randomized trials. However, because such an analysis compares patients undergoing PCI at two different times, important secular trends may have influenced the results. For example, comparisons of stent eras in the Medicare population and in the New York PCI Registry both suggested lower rates of myocardial infarction in the DES era compared to BMS era [36, 44]. However, neither study adjusted for differences in the use of outpatient medications such as statins and beta-blockers, which have increasingly been used in patients with coronary disease over time [46]. In this study, we found significantly higher rates of use of beta blockers, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and thienopyridines in the DES era. After accounting for these and other secular trends, no differences in myocardial infarction were observed between DES and BMS patients.

A number of circumstances specific to stent use allowed for the critical examination of these analytical methods. First, the rapid uptake of DES over BMS created a natural experiment allowing use of a stent era comparison. Second, because a large number of patients from randomized clinical trials comparing DES with BMS have been performed, these studies help provide an estimate of the 'truth.' However, in other examples in which the questions of interest may be less well studied, there could be much greater difficulty interpreting disparate results.

Conclusions

In summary, we have compared outcomes after PCI with either DES or BMS, using three commonly used methods of adjustment in observational studies. Large baseline differences in BMS and DES groups suggested strong treatment selection, which were incompletely adjusted for by propensity-score methods. In the presence of such treatment selection, alternative methods of analysis of observational data should be considered.

Acknowledgements and funding

No additional acknowledgements.

This work was funded by institutional funds from the Massachusetts General Hospital and Kaiser Permanente of Northern California.

List of abbreviations

ACE: 

angiotensin-converting enzyme

ARBs: 

angiotensin receptor blockers

BMS: 

bare metal stents

CABG: 

coronary artery bypass graft

CPT: 

Current Procedural Terminology

DES: 

drug-eluting stents

ICD-9-CM: 

International Classification of Diseases: Ninth Edition: Clinical Modification

KPNC: 

Kaiser Permanente of Northern California

MDRD: 

modification of diet in renal disease

PCI: 

percutaneous coronary intervention.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Cardiology Division, GRB800, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School
(2)
Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente of Northern California
(3)
Division of Biostatistics, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California

References

  1. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. H.R.1.ENR. (Accessed July 4, 2011), [http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx]
  2. Conway PH, Clancy C: Comparative-effectiveness research -- implications of the federal Coordinating Council's Report. N Engl J Med. 2009, 361: 328-330. 10.1056/NEJMp0905631.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Rubin DB: Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997, 127: 757-763.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Mauri L, Normand SL: Studies of drug-eluting stents: to each his own?. Circulation. 2008, 117: 2047-2050. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.770164.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Mauri L, Silbaugh TS, Wolf RE, Zelevinsky K, Lovett A, Zhou Z, Resnic FS, Normand SL: Long-term clinical outcomes after drug-eluting and bare-metal stenting in Massachusetts. Circulation. 2008, 118: 1817-1827. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.781377.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Mauri L, Silbaugh TS, Garg P, Wolf RE, Zelevinsky K, Lovett A, Varma MR, Zhou Z, Normand SL: Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008, 359: 1330-1342. 10.1056/NEJMoa0801485.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Garg P, Normand SL, Silbaugh TS, Wolf RE, Zelevinsky K, Lovett A, Varma MR, Zhou Z, Mauri L: Drug-eluting or bare-metal stenting in patients with diabetes mellitus: results from the Massachusetts Data Analysis Center Registry. Circulation. 2008, 118: 2277-2285. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.820159. 2277p following 2285View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Alahmar AE, Grayson AD, Andron M, Egred M, Roberts ED, Patel B, Moore RK, Albouaini K, Jackson M, Perry RA: Reduction in mortality and target-lesion revascularisation at 2 years: a comparison between drug-eluting stents and conventional bare-metal stents in the "real world". Int J Cardiol. 2009, 132: 398-404. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.03.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Applegate RJ, Sacrinty M, Kutcher M, Santos R, Gandhi S, Little W: Late outcomes of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein grafts: propensity score analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008, 72: 7-12. 10.1002/ccd.21566.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Applegate RJ, Sacrinty MT, Kutcher MA, Baki TT, Gandhi SK, Santos RM, Little WC: Comparison of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents on later frequency of acute myocardial infarction and death. Am J Cardiol. 2007, 99: 333-338. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.08.032.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Brodie BR, Stuckey T, Downey W, Humphrey A, Nussbaum M, Laurent S, Bradshaw B, Metzger C, Hermiller J, Juk S, Cheek B, Duffy P, Simonton CA: Outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies (STENT) Group. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008, 72: 893-900. 10.1002/ccd.21767.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gurvitch R, Lefkovits J, Warren RJ, Duffy SJ, Clark DJ, Eccleston D, Yan BP, Reid C, Brennan A, Andrianopoulos N, Ajani AE: Clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stent use in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol. 2010, 143: 283-288. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2009.03.064.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ko DT, Chiu M, Guo H, Austin PC, Goeree R, Cohen E, Labinaz M, Tu JV: Safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents for patients with off- and on-label indications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009, 53: 1773-1782. 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.01.059.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ortolani P, Balducelli M, Marzaroli P, Piovaccari G, Menozzi A, Guiducci V, Sangiorgio P, Tarantino F, Geraci G, Castriota F, Tondi S, Saia F, Cooke RM, Guastaroba P, Grilli R, Marzocchi A, Maresta A: Two-year clinical outcomes with drug-eluting stents for diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions: results from a real-world multicenter registry. Circulation. 2008, 117: 923-930. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.730416.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Palmerini T, Marzocchi A, Tamburino C, Sheiban I, Margheri M, Vecchi G, Sangiorgi G, Santarelli A, Bartorelli A, Briguori C, Vignali L, Di Pede F, Ramondo A, Inglese L, De Carlo M, Bolognese L, Benassi A, Palmieri C, Filippone V, Sangiorgi D, De Servi S: Two-year clinical outcome with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in a real-world registry of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis from the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology. Am J Cardiol. 2008, 102: 1463-1468. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.07.030.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Roy P, Buch AN, Javaid A, Okabe T, Raya V, Pinto Slottow TL, Steinberg DH, Smith K, Xue Z, Gevorkian N, Satler LF, Kent KM, Suddath WO, Pichard AD, Lindsay J, Waksman R: Impact of "off-label" utilization of drug-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2008, 101: 293-299. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.08.048.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ruiz-Nodar JM, Marin F, Sanchez-Paya J, Hurtado JA, Valencia-Martin J, Manzano-Fernandez S, Roldan V, Perez-Andreu V, Sogorb F, Valdes M, Lip GY: Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stent use in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2009, 30: 932-939.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Shishehbor MH, Goel SS, Kapadia SR, Bhatt DL, Kelly P, Raymond RE, Galla JM, Brener SJ, Whitlow PL, Ellis SG: Long-term impact of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents on all-cause mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008, 52: 1041-1048. 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.06.030.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Tu JV, Bowen J, Chiu M, Ko DT, Austin PC, He Y, Hopkins R, Tarride JE, Blackhouse G, Lazzam C, Cohen EA, Goeree R: Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N Engl J Med. 2007, 357: 1393-1402. 10.1056/NEJMoa071076.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Douglas PS, Brennan JM, Anstrom KJ, Sedrakyan A, Eisenstein EL, Haque G, Dai D, Kong DF, Hammill B, Curtis L, Matchar D, Brindis R, Peterson ED: Clinical effectiveness of coronary stents in elderly persons: results from 262,700 Medicare patients in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009, 53: 1629-1641. 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.03.005.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Spaulding C, Daemen J, Boersma E, Cutlip DE, Serruys PW: A pooled analysis of data comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007, 356: 989-997. 10.1056/NEJMoa066633.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, Beatt K, Bramucci E, Carrie D, Slama MS, Merkely B, Erglis A, Margheri M, Varenne O, Cebrian A, Stoll HP, Snead DB, Bode C: Sirolimus-eluting versus uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006, 355: 1093-1104. 10.1056/NEJMoa062006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirtane AJ, Gupta A, Iyengar S, Moses JW, Leon MB, Applegate R, Brodie B, Hannan E, Harjai K, Jensen LO, Park SJ, Perry R, Racz M, Saia F, Tu JV, Waksman R, Lansky AJ, Mehran R, Stone GW: Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting and bare metal stents: comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies. Circulation. 2009, 119: 3198-3206. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.826479.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Pache J, Kaiser C, Valgimigli M, Kelbaek H, Menichelli M, Sabate M, Suttorp MJ, Baumgart D, Seyfarth M, Pfisterer ME, Schömig A: Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007, 356: 1030-1039. 10.1056/NEJMoa067484.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Arcozzi C, Malagutti P, Carletti R, Ferrari F, Barbieri D, Parrinello G, Percoco G, Ferrari R: Two-year clinical follow-up after sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation assisted by systematic glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Infusion in patients with myocardial infarction: results from the STRATEGY study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007, 50: 138-145. 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.04.029.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pache J, Dibra A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, Schomig A, Kastrati A: Drug-eluting stents compared with thin-strut bare stents for the reduction of restenosis: a prospective, randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2005, 26: 1262-1268. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi098.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Barragan P, Bode C, Van Es GA, Stoll HP, Snead D, Mauri L, Cutlip DE, Sousa E: Long-term clinical outcomes with sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: five-year results of the RAVEL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007, 50: 1299-1304. 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.029.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Krieger N: Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of a census-based methodology. Am J Public Health. 1992, 82: 703-710. 10.2105/AJPH.82.5.703.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu CY: Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med. 2004, 351: 1296-1305. 10.1056/NEJMoa041031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Go AS, Lee WY, Yang J, Lo JC, Gurwitz JH: Statin therapy and risks for death and hospitalization in chronic heart failure. JAMA. 2006, 296: 2105-2111. 10.1001/jama.296.17.2105.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Selby JV, Ray GT, Zhang D, Colby CJ: Excess costs of medical care for patients with diabetes in a managed care population. Diabetes Care. 1997, 20: 1396-1402. 10.2337/diacare.20.9.1396.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001, 285: 2486-2497. 10.1001/jama.285.19.2486.
  33. Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Stevens LA, Zhang YL, Hendriksen S, Kusek JW, Van Lente F: Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2006, 145: 247-254.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002, 39: S1-246.
  35. Fireman BH, Fehrenbacher L, Gruskin EP, Ray GT: Cost of care for patients in cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000, 92: 136-142. 10.1093/jnci/92.2.136.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hannan EL, Racz M, Holmes DR, Walford G, Sharma S, Katz S, Jones RH, King SB: Comparison of coronary artery stenting outcomes in the eras before and after the introduction of drug-eluting stents. Circulation. 2008, 117: 2071-2078. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.725531.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. The beta-blocker heart attack trial. beta-Blocker Heart Attack Study Group. JAMA. 1981, 246: 2073-2074.
  38. Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, Bosch J, Davies R, Dagenais G: Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000, 342: 145-153.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 1994, 344: 1383-1389.
  40. Bhatt DL, Fox KA, Hacke W, Berger PB, Black HR, Boden WE, Cacoub P, Cohen EA, Creager MA, Easton JD, Flather MD, Haffner SM, Hamm CW, Hankey GJ, Johnston SC, Mak KH, Mas JL, Montalescot G, Pearson TA, Steg PG, Steinhubl SR, Weber MA, Brennan DM, Fabry-Ribaudo L, Booth J, Topol EJ, CHARISMA Investigators: Clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354: 1706-1717. 10.1056/NEJMoa060989.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Newman TB, Brown AN: Use of commercial record linkage software and vital statistics to identify patient deaths. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997, 4: 233-237. 10.1136/jamia.1997.0040233.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Arellano MG, Petersen GR, Petitti DB, Smith RE: The California Automated Mortality Linkage System (CAMLIS). Am J Public Health. 1984, 74: 1324-1330. 10.2105/AJPH.74.12.1324.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Austin PC: Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009, 51: 171-184. 10.1002/bimj.200810488.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Malenka DJ, Kaplan AV, Lucas FL, Sharp SM, Skinner JS: Outcomes following coronary stenting in the era of bare-metal vs the era of drug-eluting stents. JAMA. 2008, 299: 2868-2876. 10.1001/jama.299.24.2868.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Normand SL: Some old and some new statistical tools for outcomes research. Circulation. 2008, 118: 872-884. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.766907.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Yeh RW, Sidney S, Chandra M, Sorel M, Selby JV, Go AS: Population trends in the incidence and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 362: 2155-2165.
  47. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/78/prepub

Copyright

© Yeh et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.