Impact of renal insufficiency on safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents at 6 years

Background: There is few information on the long-term efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in all-comer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—patients complicated by renal insufficiency (RI). Objective: Our aim was to assess the 6-year clinical outcome of PCI-patients with RI treated exclusively with BMS, SES, or PES in our academic hospital. Methods: A total of 1382 patients, included in three cohorts of consecutive PCI-patients (BMS = 392; SES = 498; PES = 492), were categorized by creatinine clearance calculated by the Cockroft–Gault formula (normal kidney function ≥ 90; mild RI = 60–89; moderate RI < 60) and systematically followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results: Mortality rates were significantly higher for patients with moderate RI compared to mild RI and normal kidney function at 6 years (Kaplan–Meier estimate: moderate RI (34%) vs. mild RI (12%), P < 0.001; moderate RI (34%) vs. normal kidney function (8%), P < 0.001). After multivariate Cox-regression analysis, SES and PES decreased the occurrence of target-vessel revascularization (TVR) and MACE at 6 years in patients with a normal creatinine clearance compared to BMS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28–0.84; aHR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.97, respectively] with no significant effect on mortality. Safety- and efficacy end points were comparable for the three stent types in patients with mild- and moderate renal function. Conclusion: Patients with a normal creatinine clearance had significant improvement in TVR and MACE rates after SES- or PES implantation compared to BMS at 6 years. However, there was no superiority of both drug-eluting stents over BMS in safety and efficacy end points for patients with impaired renal function. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.