Impact of stent diameter and length on in‐stent restenosis after DES vs BMS implantation in patients needing large coronary stents—A clinical and health‐economic evaluation

Summary Aims The British National Institute of Clinical Excellence ( NICE ) guidelines recommend to use drug‐eluting stents ( DES ) instead of bare‐metal stents ( BMS ) only in lesions >15 mm in length or in vessels <3 mm in diameter. We analyzed the impact of stent length and stent diameter on in‐stent restenosis ( ISR ) in the BASKET ‐ PROVE study population and evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of DES compared to BMS . Methods/Results The BASKET ‐ PROVE trial compared DES vs BMS in large coronary arteries (≥3 mm). We calculated incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios ( ICER s) and cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves with regard to quality‐adjusted life years ( QALY s) gained and target lesion revascularizations ( TLR s) avoided. A total of 2278 patients were included in the analysis. A total of 74 ISR in 63 patients were observed. In‐stent restenosis was significantly more frequent in segments treated with a BMS compared to segments treated with a DES (5.4% vs 0.76%; P <.001). The benefit of a DES compared to a BMS regarding ISR was consistent among the subgroups of stent length >15 mm and ≤15 mm, respectively. With the use of DES in short lesions, there was only a minimal gain of 0.005 in QALY s. At a threshold of 10 000 CHF per TLR avoided, DES had a high probability of being cost‐effective. Conclusion In the BASKET ‐ PROVE study population, the strongest predictor of ISR is the use of a BMS , even in patients in need of stents ≥3.0 mm and ≤15 mm lesion length and DES were cost‐effective. This should prompt the NICE to reevaluate its recommendation to use DES instead of BMS only in vessels <3.0 mm and lesions >15 mm length.