Why the study?
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation reduce neointimal hyperplasia compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients?
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation reduce neointimal hyperplasia compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients?
Sirolimus-eluting stents significantly reduce neointimal hyperplasia volume and extent compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients at 8-month follow-up.
Sirolimus-eluting stents may be preferred over paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients; extends comparative evidence for drug-eluting stent selection in this population.
AIMS: Patients with diabetes have increased risk of in-stent restenosis after coronary stent implantation owing to neointimal hyperplasia (NIH). The aim of the study was to evaluate the extent and distribution of NIH with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) after coronary artery stenting with sirolimus-eluting (Cypher) or paclitaxel-eluting (Taxus) stents in diabetic patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and thirty diabetic patients were randomized to Cypher or Taxus stent implantation. IVUS was performed at 8 month follow-up. NIH volume was significantly reduced in the Cypher group when compared with the Taxus group: median (inter-quartile range) 0.0 (0.0-0.0) vs. 8.0 mm(3) (0.1-33.0), P < 0.001. Per cent NIH volume was also significantly lower in Cypher stents compared with Taxus stents: median (inter-quartile range) 0.0 (0.0-0.0) vs. 7.5% (0.1-27.0), P < 0.001. NIH was covering 5.4% of the stent length in the Cypher stents compared with 46.1% in the Taxus stents (P < 0.001). The incidence of diffuse NIH was significantly higher for Taxus than for Cypher stents (42.9 vs. 3.5%, P < 0.001). Taxus stents had more often NIH at the proximal stent edge compared with Cypher stents (45.1 vs. 7%, P < 0.001) and no Cypher stents had NIH at the distal stent edge compared with 35.5% of the Taxus stents (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients, the Cypher stent, compared with the Taxus stent, inhibited NIH more effectively and had a more focal NIH pattern including less involvement of the stent edges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jensen et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: