Sex differences in long-term outcomes of coronary patients treated with drug-eluting stents at a tertiary medical center

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on contemporary sex-related differences in long-term outcomes of coronary patients receiving drug-eluting stents. In this study we evaluate differences for males (M) and females (F) in 2-year target lesion failure (TLF) in an unselected consecutive series of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at a tertiary medical center. METHODS: Data on 348 consecutive patients (M 221, F 127) stented with EES and PES were retrospectively analyzed. The primary end point of the study was to compare sex-related outcomes in TLF, defined as the combined end point of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary end points included TLR, target vessel failure, target vessel revascularization, acute stent thrombosis as defined by the Academic Research Consortium, and cardiac death. The cineangiograms of the first consecutive 162 patients (M 105, F 57) were independently reviewed by a cardiologist blinded to clinical outcome, and SYNTAX scoring was performed. Follow-up was achieved using medical records and/or phone calls and was censored at 2 years. Descriptive analysis was performed on all variables. Univariate analysis compared the M and F cohorts. Multivariate analysis using Cox regression was performed to determine independent predictors of TLF with time, including sex as an independent variable in the model. RESULTS: M had more prior percutaneous coronary interventions and restenotic lesions and a higher prevalence of smoking. They also had longer length of disease and received more stents than F. F were older and had a higher prevalence of prior stroke. Angiographic complexity was not statistically different between the two groups, as judged by SYNTAX scoring (M 20.8±13.8, F 19.7±13.9, P=0.650). At 2-year follow-up, TLF was 27.4% and 24.8% (P=0.614) with no statistical difference between TLR (23.3% versus [vs] 21.6%), cardiac death (2.8% vs 3.2%), and definite and probable stent thrombosis (2.3% vs 0.0%) in M and F, respectively. Cox regression analysis using backward elimination showed that the number of stents per patient was the only independent predictor of TLF with time (hazard ratio 1.201, 95% confidence interval 1.126–1.280, P=0.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients receiving EES and PES, M and F did not have statistically different outcomes at 2-year follow-up, consistent with recent reports in the current era of percutaneous coronary interventions.