Comparison of outcomes of coronary stenting versus conventional coronary angioplasty in the department of veterans affairs medical centers

Although the short-term benefits of stent deployment have been established, less is known about long-term outcomes. This study compares short- and long-term outcomes in veterans undergoing stenting and conventional coronary angioplasty. We used Department of Veterans Affairs databases to identify 27,224 veterans who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Veterans Affairs medical centers between October 1994 and September 1999. Patients were classified according to whether they had acute myocardial infarction (AMI) as the principal diagnosis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the stent and conventional groups. In AMI, hospital mortality was 2.9% for those with stents and 4.8% for those who underwent conventional coronary angioplasty (p <0.0001), whereas for paitents without AMI, hospital mortality was similar (1.2% vs 1.4%, p = 0.12). For AMI, same-admission bypass surgery rates were lower in the stent group (0.7% vs 3.2%, p <0.0001) and in the group without AMI (1.2% vs 3.3%, p <0.0001). Two-year survival was better for stenting in veterans with (90% vs 88%, p = 0.006) and without (92% vs 91%, p = 0.008) AMI. For AMI, 2-year rehospitalization rates for PCI (10% vs 13%, p <0.0001), coronary artery bypass surgery (4% vs 6%, p <0.0001), and unstable angina (17% vs 23%) were lower for those who had stenting. In the no-AMI group, 2-year rehospitalization rates for PCI (14% vs 17%, p <0.0001), coronary artery bypass surgery (5% vs 8%, p <0.0001), and unstable angina (22% vs 29%, p <0.0001) were lower in the stent group. Veterans who underwent stenting had lower hospital mortality, reduced rates of same-admission bypass surgery, marginally better survival, and lower rates of rehospitalization than their counterparts who had conventional coronary angioplasty.