Key result
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents had similar efficacy to durable polymer stents for target-lesion revascularization in patients with diabetes (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.85-1.24; P=0.80).
Why the study?
While BP-DES and DP-DES have shown comparable efficacy in all-comers populations, their efficacy and safety in patients with diabetes remained uncertain.
Does biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) improve efficacy and safety compared to durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in patients with diabetes?
Meta-Analysis (n=5,190)
Does biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) improve efficacy and safety compared to durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in patients with diabetes?
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents have similar safety and efficacy profiles compared to contemporary durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes.
AIMS: The biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) offer controlled drug elution and complete degradation of the polymer over time, eventually lowering the risk for chronic inflammation and neoatherosclerosis, which can be particularly helpful in patients with diabetes. While BP-DES and durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) have demonstrated comparable efficacy in all-comers population, their efficacy and safety in patients with diabetes remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with contemporary DP-DES in patients with diabetes. Study investigators were contacted to obtain additional data. The primary outcome was efficacy in terms of target-vessel revascularization (TVR) and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). We also evaluated the following safety outcomes separately: all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Eleven RCTs including 5190 diabetic patients were included. At the longest available follow-up (mean 2.7 years), there was no significant difference in TLR [relative risk (RR): 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.24; P = 0.80] or TVR (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.34; P = 0.76). Safety outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and MI were similar between the two groups. Stent thrombosis rates were also similar between BP-DES and DP-DES groups (1.66% vs. 1.83%; RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.54-1.31; P = 0.45). The heterogeneity was low and fixed-effect model yielded similar results. Meta-regression analysis showed no relationship between insulin requiring diabetes and difference in TLR or stent thrombosis between BP-DES and DP-DES. CONCLUSION: Overall, BP-DESs have similar safety and efficacy profiles compared to contemporary DP-DES in patients with diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bavishi et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Diabetes (n=5,190). Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) vs. Contemporary durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) was evaluated on Target-lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85-1.24, p=0.80). Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents had similar efficacy to durable polymer stents for target-lesion revascularization in patients with diabetes (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.85-1.24; P=0.80).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: