OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with insulin- and noninsulin-treated diabetes. BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a powerful predictor of adverse events after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), and insulin-treated diabetic patients have worse outcomes. The DES are efficacious among patients with diabetes; however, their safety and efficacy, compared with BMS, among insulin-treated versus noninsulin-treated diabetic patients is not well established. METHODS: Using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry, we evaluated 1-year outcomes of insulin-treated (n = 817) and noninsulin-treated (n = 1,749) patients with diabetes who underwent PCI with DES versus BMS. RESULTS: The use of DES, compared with BMS, was associated with a lower risk for repeat revascularization for both noninsulin-treated patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.76) and insulin-treated subjects (adjusted HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90). With respect to safety in the overall diabetic population, DES use was associated with a reduction of death or myocardial infarction (adjusted HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96). However, this benefit was confined to the population of noninsulin-treated patients (adjusted HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.81). Among insulin-treated patients, there was no difference in death or myocardial infarction risk between DES- and BMS-treated patients (adjusted HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39). CONCLUSIONS: Drug-eluting stents are associated with lower risk for repeat revascularization compared with BMS in treating coronary artery disease among patients with either insulin- or noninsulin-treated diabetes. In addition, DES use is not associated with any significant increased safety risk compared with BMS. These findings suggest that DES should be the preferred strategy for diabetic patients.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with insulin- and noninsulin-treated diabetes. BACKGROUND:Diabetes is a powerful predictor of adverse events after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), and insulin-treated diabeticpatients have worse outcomes. The DES are efficacious among patients with diabetes; however, their safety and efficacy, compared with BMS, among insulin-treated versus noninsulin-treated diabetic patients is not well established. METHODS: Using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry, we evaluated 1-year outcomes of insulin-treated (n = 817) and noninsulin-treated (n = 1,749) patients with diabetes who underwent PCI with DES versus BMS. RESULTS: The use of DES, compared with BMS, was associated with a lower risk for repeat revascularization for both noninsulin-treated patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.76) and insulin-treated subjects (adjusted HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90). With respect to safety in the overall diabetic population, DES use was associated with a reduction of death or myocardial infarction (adjusted HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96). However, this benefit was confined to the population of noninsulin-treated patients (adjusted HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.81). Among insulin-treated patients, there was no difference in death or myocardial infarction risk between DES- and BMS-treated patients (adjusted HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39). CONCLUSIONS: Drug-eluting stents are associated with lower risk for repeat revascularization compared with BMS in treating coronary artery disease among patients with either insulin- or noninsulin-treated diabetes. In addition, DES use is not associated with any significant increased safety risk compared with BMS. These findings suggest that DES should be the preferred strategy for diabeticpatients.
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Peter M Scholz; Anita Y Chen; Eric D Peterson; Jeffrey Gold; Stephen H Schneider Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Oscar C Marroquin; Faith Selzer; Suresh R Mulukutla; David O Williams; Helen A Vlachos; Robert L Wilensky; Jean-François Tanguay; Elizabeth M Holper; J Dawn Abbott; Joon S Lee; Conrad Smith; William D Anderson; Sheryl F Kelsey; Kevin E Kip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K M Detre; P Guo; R Holubkov; R M Califf; G Sopko; R Bach; M M Brooks; M G Bourassa; R J Shemin; A D Rosen; R J Krone; R L Frye; F Feit Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-02-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sean M Donahoe; Garrick C Stewart; Carolyn H McCabe; Satishkumar Mohanavelu; Sabina A Murphy; Christopher P Cannon; Elliott M Antman Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christoph Stettler; Simon Wandel; Sabin Allemann; Adnan Kastrati; Marie Claude Morice; Albert Schömig; Matthias E Pfisterer; Gregg W Stone; Martin B Leon; José Suarez de Lezo; Jean-Jacques Goy; Seung-Jung Park; Manel Sabaté; Maarten J Suttorp; Henning Kelbaek; Christian Spaulding; Maurizio Menichelli; Paul Vermeersch; Maurits T Dirksen; Pavel Cervinka; Anna Sonia Petronio; Alain J Nordmann; Peter Diem; Bernhard Meier; Marcel Zwahlen; Stephan Reichenbach; Sven Trelle; Stephan Windecker; Peter Jüni Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Jamal S Rana; Lakshmi Venkitachalam; Faith Selzer; Suresh R Mulukutla; Oscar C Marroquin; Warren K Laskey; Elizabeth M Holper; Vankeepuram S Srinivas; Kevin E Kip; Sheryl F Kelsey; Richard W Nesto Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 17.152