Drug Eluding Stents vs. Bare Metal Stents: What Produces Less Consequences?

Background: Drug eluding stents (DES) have become common practice in the clinical setting, but bare metal stents (BMS) are still used in practice. It’s important to understand the research for why we should use DES, and why BMS are still an option. Objective: The objective of this project is to conduct a literature review on the use of drug eluding stents versus bare metal stents. Specifically, comparing the complications postoperatively from these stents, and also the indications for getting a bare metal stent. Methods: A literature review was conducted on 6 studies regarding patient complications are getting DES or BMS. One study is a meta-analysis, two are systematic reviews, and all are quantitative studies. Results: The results of the studies showed that DES show less incidence of patient complications when compared to BMS. These complications involved major adverse cardiac events (myocardial infarction, death, stroke), restenosis, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization. BMS indications for use were found to be advanced age, certain cases of ST- elevation myocardial infarctions, and a physician’s perception of patients who are high bleeding risks. Discussion: Based on these results, it emphasizes why DES are the standard of care for patients requiring cardiac stents. However, future additional research should be conducted on if advanced age and high bleeding risks are valid reasons for BMS. Also, cost effectiveness of these stents would be included in further research.