Key result
Sirolimus-eluting stents show similar MACE rates to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with diabetes.
Why the study?
Does the use of sirolimus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents improve 2-year clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Observational (n=945)
Yes
Does the use of sirolimus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents improve 2-year clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Hazard Ratio: 1.01 (95% CI 0.72–1.42)
Absolute Event Rate: 23.3% vs 23.7%
p-value: p=0.96
In a real-world registry of patients with diabetes, there was no significant difference in 2-year MACE between sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents.
Comparable MACE rates with either stent in diabetics; leaves open optimal selection pending randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) compared to paclitaxel-eluting-stents (PES) in unselected diabetics in routine practice is still debated. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the 2-year incidence of MACE (all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization) of SES and PES in a real-world setting of patients with diabetes. DESIGN: Observational, multicenter, nonrandomized study. SETTING: Prospective web-based registry (REAL Registry; study period, 2002-2005) comprising all 13 hospitals performing PCI. PATIENTS: Among the 945 eligible patients treated with either SES alone (n = 606) or PES alone (n = 339), 29% were insulin-requiring, 72% had multivessel coronary disease, 26% had prior myocardial infarction and 10% had poor left ventricular function. MEASUREMENTS: Unadjusted and propensity score-adjusted 2-year clinical outcome. RESULTS: After propensity score adjustment, 2-year MACE incidence in the SES and PES groups was equivalent (23.3% vs. 23.7%, HR 1.01, 95%CI 0.72-1.42, P = 0.96). Adjusted 2-year angiographic stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% of the SES patients versus 2.6% of the PES patients (P = 0.15). In this large, real-world, diabetic population treated with DES, there was no difference in outcome between SES and PES. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the long-term safety of different types of DES in patients with diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balducelli et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Diabetes (n=945). Sirolimus-eluting stents vs. Paclitaxel-eluting stents was evaluated on MACE (all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization) (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72-1.42, p=0.96). Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with similar 2-year rates of MACE compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with diabetes (23.3% vs 23.7%; HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.72-1.42; P=0.96).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: