Why the study?
Does coronary stenting result in different long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes in diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic patients?
Does coronary stenting result in different long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes in diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic patients?
Coronary stenting in diabetic patients is associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes (higher MACE) and lower follow-up minimal luminal diameter compared to non-diabetic patients.
Diabetics face higher MACE after stenting; observational data leaves open whether diabetes-specific strategies improve durability.
Background:Diabetes is a major risk factor for restenosis and high mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. The impact of coronary stenting on the clinical outcome of diabetic patients remains controversial. Method:The in-hospital and long-term clinical outcomes of 104 consecutive diabetic (60±8 year-old, 74 male) and age-matched 193 control (57±10 year-old, 162 male) patents underwent coronary stenting between January 1998 and March 1999 at Chonnam National University Hospital were compared. Results:1) Coronary stenting was successful in 98% of diabetic patients and 97% of non-diabetic patients. Post-procedural minimal luminal diameter (MLD) was not different between two groups (2.89±0.42 vs. 2.95±0.62 mm), but follow-up MLD was lower in diabetics than that in non-diabetics (1.70±0.96 vs. 2.05±0.72 mm, p<0.05). 2) Restenosis rate on follow-up coronary angiograpy was not different between two groups (40.7% in diabetics and 32.0% in non-diabetics. 3) In-hospital outcome was not different between two groups. Long-term clinical follow-up (16±11 months) revealed higher overall major adverse cardiac events in diabetics than in non-diabetics (38.7 vs. 30.7%, p<0.05). Conclusion:Coronary stenting in diabetics can be performed with acceptable short-term results. However, long-term clinical outcome in diabetic patients was worse than in non-diabetics. (Korean Circulation J 2001;31(1):24-30)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: