AIMS: To investigate the outcome of a real world diabetic patient cohort treated with bare metal stents (BMS), sirolimus-, or paclitaxel-eluting stents (SES and PES, respectively). Due to the different mechanisms of action of both drugs it is currently unknown which device is the best option to treat these high-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study compares the 2-year clinical outcome of 708 consecutive diabetic patients (25% insulin treated) treated with either a BMS (n = 252), a SES (n = 206), or a PES (n = 250), as part of the RESEARCH and T-SEARCH registries. Target vessel revascularization was 19.5% in the BMS group, vs. 15.3% in the SES group and 9.7% in the PES group. PES (21.2%), but not SES (28.9%), were superior to BMS (29.7%) in reducing major adverse cardiac events. After propensity analyses, none of the differences remained significant. The incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) was high in both DES groups. CONCLUSION: There was a trend towards a more favourable outcome associated with the use of PES over BMS. There was no significant difference between SES and PES in each of the clinical endpoints, and neither in the NIDDM patients, which are hypothesized to be better-off with PES.
AIMS: To investigate the outcome of a real world diabeticpatient cohort treated with bare metal stents (BMS), sirolimus-, or paclitaxel-eluting stents (SES and PES, respectively). Due to the different mechanisms of action of both drugs it is currently unknown which device is the best option to treat these high-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study compares the 2-year clinical outcome of 708 consecutive diabeticpatients (25% insulin treated) treated with either a BMS (n = 252), a SES (n = 206), or a PES (n = 250), as part of the RESEARCH and T-SEARCH registries. Target vessel revascularization was 19.5% in the BMS group, vs. 15.3% in the SES group and 9.7% in the PES group. PES (21.2%), but not SES (28.9%), were superior to BMS (29.7%) in reducing major adverse cardiac events. After propensity analyses, none of the differences remained significant. The incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) was high in both DES groups. CONCLUSION: There was a trend towards a more favourable outcome associated with the use of PES over BMS. There was no significant difference between SES and PES in each of the clinical endpoints, and neither in the NIDDMpatients, which are hypothesized to be better-off with PES.
Authors: William M Wolf; Helen A Vlachos; Oscar C Marroquin; Joon S Lee; Conrad Smith; William D Anderson; John T Schindler; Elizabeth M Holper; J Dawn Abbott; David O Williams; Warren K Laskey; Kevin E Kip; Sheryl F Kelsey; Suresh R Mulukutla Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Marcus Wiemer; Gian Battista Danzi; Nick West; Vassilios Voudris; René Koning; Stefan Hoffmann; Mario Lombardi; Josepa Mauri; Rade Babic; Fraser Witherow Journal: Med Devices (Auckl) Date: 2015-02-18
Authors: Sripal Bangalore; Sunil Kumar; Mario Fusaro; Nicholas Amoroso; Ajay J Kirtane; Robert A Byrne; David O Williams; James Slater; Donald E Cutlip; Frederick Feit Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-08-10