Document Type


Publication Date



This article is the author's final published version in Journal of Interventional Cardiology, Volume 2024, 2024, Article number 3072909.

The published version is available at

Copyright © 2024 Muhammad U. Siddiqui et al.


Background. Studies have demonstrated poor prognosis in cancer patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary artery disease (CAD). Cancer patients receiving PCI are at increased risk of in-stent thrombosis, bleeding, hospital readmissions, and cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality when compared to patients without cancer. It is unclear if the poor outcomes in cancer patients are related to the stent type utilized for PCI. This meta-analysis attempts to identify differences in efficacy and safety outcomes when comparing drug-eluting stents (DESs) with bare metal stents (BMSs) in cancer patients. Methods. This meta-analysis is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes of interest were in-stent thrombosis, bleeding, and mortality. Results. Four studies comprising of 54,414 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference in in-stent thrombosis (odds ratio (OR): 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-1.07), bleeding events (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.77-2.49), or in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.92; 95% CI: 0.83-4.43) when comparing cancer patients who underwent PCI with DES vs BMS. Conclusions. This meta-analysis demonstrates no difference in mortality, bleeding, or in-stent thrombosis between revascularization with BMS vs DES in patients with cancer and CAD. Cancer patients included in this meta-analysis experienced higher rates of mortality, bleeding, and in-stent thrombosis after PCI compared to all-comers described in the literature.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.



Included in

Cardiology Commons