BACKGROUND: Whether the diabetic status differentially affects the clinical outcomes with different drug-eluting stents (DES) has been controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: From stent-specific, prospective DES registries, we evaluated 17,184 patients (11,428 in non-diabetics and 5,756 in diabetics) who received several contemporary DES: 3570 sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 5,023 cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES), 2,985 platinum-chromium EES (PtCr-EES), 2,913 Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (Re-ZES), and 2,693 biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES). The primary outcome was patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization) at 3-year follow-up and target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) at 3 years was also evaluated. In non-diabetics, the rates of POCE were not significantly different (CoCr-EES 14.3%, PtCr-EES 13.0%, Re-ZES 14.3%, BP-BES 13.4%, and SES 14.6%; overall p = .39). In diabetics, similar results were revealed (CoCr-EES 18.4%, PtCr-EES 20.3%, Re-ZES 17.3%, BP-BES 17.7%, and SES 17.8%; overall p = .44). In multiple treatment propensity-score weighting analysis, regardless of the diabetic status, the hazard ratios for POCE between-individual comparison were similar. Target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) was also comparable except the higher ratio of Re-ZES than PtCr-EES (hazard ratio 1.25, 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.55, p = .048) in patients without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical-practice registry study, regardless the diabetic status, the 3-year rates of the primary outcome were similar among different types of DES, suggesting no differential clinical response between contemporary DES in patients with or without diabetes.
BACKGROUND: Whether the diabetic status differentially affects the clinical outcomes with different drug-eluting stents (DES) has been controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: From stent-specific, prospective DES registries, we evaluated 17,184 patients (11,428 in non-diabetics and 5,756 in diabetics) who received several contemporary DES: 3570 sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 5,023 cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES), 2,985 platinum-chromium EES (PtCr-EES), 2,913 Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (Re-ZES), and 2,693 biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES). The primary outcome was patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization) at 3-year follow-up and target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) at 3 years was also evaluated. In non-diabetics, the rates of POCE were not significantly different (CoCr-EES 14.3%, PtCr-EES 13.0%, Re-ZES 14.3%, BP-BES 13.4%, and SES 14.6%; overall p = .39). In diabetics, similar results were revealed (CoCr-EES 18.4%, PtCr-EES 20.3%, Re-ZES 17.3%, BP-BES 17.7%, and SES 17.8%; overall p = .44). In multiple treatment propensity-score weighting analysis, regardless of the diabetic status, the hazard ratios for POCE between-individual comparison were similar. Target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) was also comparable except the higher ratio of Re-ZES than PtCr-EES (hazard ratio 1.25, 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.55, p = .048) in patients without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical-practice registry study, regardless the diabetic status, the 3-year rates of the primary outcome were similar among different types of DES, suggesting no differential clinical response between contemporary DES in patients with or without diabetes.