Key result
Sirolimus-eluting stents show no mortality difference compared to bare-metal stents in diabetic patients.
Why the study?
Do sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents reduce target lesion revascularisation without increasing overall mortality compared to bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes?
Population
35 trials pooling 14,799 people with symptoms or signs of myocardial ischaemia as a result of coronary…
Comparison
Sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting… vs Bare metal stents
Design
Meta-analysis
Follow-up
At least 6 months (up to 4 years)
Authors
Loading...
Supports sirolimus-eluting stent use in diabetes with DAPT ≥6 months; extends meta-analytic safety data to this high-risk population.
Meta-Analysis (n=14,799)
Do sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents reduce target lesion revascularisation without increasing overall mortality compared to bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes?
Hazard Ratio: 0.88 (95% CI 0.55–1.3)
Drug-eluting stents are safe and effective in reducing revascularization in patients with and without diabetes, provided dual antiplatelet therapy is maintained for at least six months.
Stettler et al. (2008) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary artery disease (n=14,799). Sirolimus eluting stents and paclitaxel eluting stents vs. Bare metal stents was evaluated on Overall mortality in people with diabetes (trials with ≥6 months dual antiplatelet therapy) (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30). In trials specifying dual antiplatelet therapy for six months or more, sirolimus-eluting stents did not increase overall mortality compared to bare-metal stents in patients with diabetes (HR 0.88).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: