Key result
SES and EES yield similar 2-year target vessel failure rates versus ZES in diabetic patients.
Its licence doesn't allow us to show a copy here.
Why the study?
Patients with diabetes have higher risks of adverse clinical events after stenting, and data evaluating contemporary drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients are scarce.
Do different contemporary drug-eluting stents (SES, EES, and ZES) differ in 2-year target vessel failure rates in all-comer patients with diabetes?
RCT (n=1,134)
Stratified for diabetes
Do different contemporary drug-eluting stents (SES, EES, and ZES) differ in 2-year target vessel failure rates in all-comer patients with diabetes?
Hazard Ratio: 0.78 (95% CI 0.44–1.4)
Absolute Event Rate: 10.2% vs 12.7%
p-value: p=0.40
Contemporary drug-eluting stents (SES, EES, and ZES) show comparable safety and efficacy at 2 years in all-comer patients with diabetes.
Supports flexible DES selection by availability or cost in diabetic PCI; confirms equivalence among contemporary platforms in this RCT.
BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes have more extensive coronary disease, resulting in higher risks of adverse clinical events following stenting. In all-comer patients, contemporary DES have shown excellent safety and efficacy, but data on diabetic patients are scarce. Separately for the BIO-RESORT and BIONYX trials, we assessed the 2-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients, treated with various contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: We performed two prespecified secondary analyses of two randomized DES trials, which both stratified for diabetes. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Follow-up was finished before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In BIO-RESORT, 624/3514 (17.8%) had diabetes: 211 received Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 203 Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES), and 210 Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (RI-ZES). TVF did not differ between SES (10.2%) and EES (10.0%) versus RI-ZES (12.7%) (SES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.78, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.40, EES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.79, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.42). In BIONYX, 510/2488 (20.5%) patients had diabetes: 250 received SES and 260 Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stents (RO-ZES). There was no difference in TVF between SES (10.7%) versus RO-ZES (12.2%) (HR:0.88, 95%-CI [0.52-1.48]; p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in 2-year clinical outcome among patients with diabetes, who were treated with SES, or EES, versus RI-ZES. In addition there was no difference in clinical outcome in diabetic patients, who were treated with SES versus RO-ZES. These findings may be considered as a signal of safety and efficacy of the studied DES in patients with diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ploumen et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Coronary disease in patients with diabetes (n=1,134). Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or everolimus-eluting stents (EES) vs. Zotarolimus-eluting stents (RI-ZES or RO-ZES) was evaluated on Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44-1.40, p=0.40). Sirolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents resulted in similar 2-year rates of target vessel failure compared to zotarolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients (SES vs RI-ZES HR 0.78; p=0.40).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: