|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search | Login | Buy full access |
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on Cardiology and cardiac surgery
To the Editor: Drug-eluting coronary stents (DES) were approved for use in Australia in 2002, after they were found to be effective in limiting the incidence of restenosis.1 However, their cost is three to four times that of traditional bare-metal stents, and most Australian states restricted their use in the public health system. In 2006, we reported in the Journal that DES were used in 45% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Victorian public hospitals, and that they were largely reserved for patients with risk factors for restenosis, such as diabetes, small vessels, and complex lesions.2 However, in the private health system, DES can be claimed as prostheses from insurance funds, so their use is not limited by financial constraints.
In early 2007, multiple reports from around the world noted a small but significant increase in late stent thrombosis occurring 1–4 years after implantation of DES.3,4 This caused concern, as stent thrombosis has a mortality rate approaching 50%. It is now recommended that all patients with DES maintain aspirin and clopidogrel therapy for at least a year, although the appropriate duration of this treatment remains unknown.5 Further, long-term dual antiplatelet therapy is associated with an increased risk of bleeding and is problematic for patients requiring surgery.4,5
We examined the use of DES from February 2006 to June 2007 in 674 patients undergoing PCI by 10 operators in a Victorian private hospital. Monthly use dropped dramatically, from a peak of 91% of patients in July 2006 to 34% in June 2007 (Box). In 118 PCIs performed between March and May 2007, DES were used more often in: diabetic than non-diabetic patients (67% v 47%; P = 0.05); small (≤ 2.5 mm) vessels compared with large vessels (74% v 53%; P = 0.04); and long lesions (> 20 mm stent length) compared with shorter lesions (62% v 52%; P = not significant). This mirrors the pattern previously seen only in patients treated in the public health system.2
Given the issue of late stent thrombosis and the need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, reserving DES for patients who are at high risk of restenosis in both the public and private health systems seems very appropriate. Utilisation is likely to change again with a better understanding of the long-term safety of DES, but a cautious approach should be maintained.
Department of Cardiology, Warringal Private Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.
clarkdavidjAThotmail.com
|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Terms of use | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search |
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2008 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377