Key result
In diabetic patients, the Endeavor stent was associated with a higher 3-year MACE rate compared to the Cypher stent (HR 2.35; 95% CI 1.07-5.41; P=0.030).
Why the study?
Do everolimus-eluting stents (Endeavor) reduce MACE compared to sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents in type 2 diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions?
RCT (n=226)
No
Do everolimus-eluting stents (Endeavor) reduce MACE compared to sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents in type 2 diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions?
Hazard Ratio: 2.35 (95% CI 1.07–5.41)
Absolute Event Rate: 64.4% vs 86.8%
p-value: p=0.030
In diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions, the Endeavor stent was associated with a higher 3-year MACE rate compared to Cypher and Taxus stents.
Clinicians should prefer Cypher over Endeavor in diabetics; challenges equivalence among drug-eluting stents in this population.
BACKGROUND: To expand the paucity of data on the efficacy of various drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Type 2 diabetic patients treated in our institution from October 2005 to January 2007 presenting with of de novo lesions in native coronary arteries were randomly assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher group; n=76); paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus group; n=75); and everolimus-eluting stents (Endeavor group; n=75). Poor metabolic control (HbA1c >7% and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >100 mg/dL) and microvascular complications (retinopathy and/or nephropathy) were assessed. The primary end point was the 3-year composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death of any cause, myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. MACE-free survival was 86.8% in the Cypher group, 82.5% in the Taxus group, and 64.4% in the Endeavor group (P=0.006 by log-rank test). The post hoc comparisons showed no significant difference between Cypher versus Taxus groups (adjusted P=1.0) but a higher MACE rate in the Endeavor group versus both the Cypher group (adjusted P=0.012) and the Taxus group (adjusted P=0.075). Independent predictors of 3-year MACE at Cox analysis were treatment by Endeavor versus Cypher stent (2.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 5.41]; P=0.030), multivessel disease (hazard ratio, 1.78 [95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.66]; P=0.031), diabetic retinopathy (hazard ratio, 1.60; [95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 2.76]; P=0.038), and poor metabolic control (hazard ratio, 1.60; [95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 2.52]; P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The present pilot study suggests that in diabetic patients, the Endeavor stent is associated with a higher 3-year MACE rate when compared with Cypher and Taxus stents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Briguori et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes with de novo coronary lesions (n=226). Everolimus-eluting stents (Endeavor) vs. Sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher) and Paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) was evaluated on 3-year composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death of any cause, myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.07-5.41, p=0.030). In diabetic patients, the Endeavor stent was associated with a higher 3-year MACE rate compared to the Cypher stent (HR 2.35; 95% CI 1.07-5.41; P=0.030).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: