Key result
Exenatide fails to improve coronary stent strut coverage over standard treatment in type 2 diabetes.
Why the study?
Subjects with type 2 diabetes have a higher risk of in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis, and the effect of GLP-1R agonist exenatide on stent endothelialization is unclear.
Does exenatide improve coronary drug-eluting stent strut coverage in patients with type 2 diabetes?
RCT (n=38)
Open-label, assessor-blinded
Randomized
Yes
Does exenatide improve coronary drug-eluting stent strut coverage in patients with type 2 diabetes?
Twelve weeks of treatment with the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide did not significantly improve coronary stent strut coverage compared to standard treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Exenatide adds no benefit for stent endothelialization in type 2 diabetes; challenges expectations of GLP-1 RA effects on vascular healing.
BACKGROUND: Subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a higher risk of in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis. The activation of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) has been suggested to induce several effects on the vasculature that may reduce the risk of stent failure following an angioplasty. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of the GLP-1R agonist exenatide on endothelialization of a modern drug-eluting stent (DES) in subjects with T2D. METHODS: 38 subjects with T2D who were eligible for revascularization with implantation of DES were randomized to treatment with exenatide (once weekly) plus standard treatment, or to standard treatment alone. After 12 weeks, a new coronary angiography was performed to evaluate the percentage of strut coverage (primary endpoint) and the presence of neo-atherosclerosis by optical coherence tomography. This study was approved by the Stockholm's Ethical Review Board. RESULTS: The two groups were well balanced regarding baseline clinical characteristics. Strut coverage was 95% (88.7-98.5%) in the exenatide group and 91.4% (88.8-98.5%) in the control group (p = 0.692). There were no significant differences between groups neither in the thickness of neo-intima (0.2 mm in both groups, p = 0.471), nor the maximal in-stent obstruction by neo-intima (15.5% in exenatide group vs 14.7% in control group, p = 0.801). No significant differences were detected in the rate of target lesion revascularization between groups (p = 0.224). CONCLUSION: Twelve weeks treatment with exenatide did not lead to a significantly better stent coverage in people with T2D. No significant differences in the occurrence of neo-atherosclerosis were detected between groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (Rebuild Study, NCT02621489).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santos‐Pardo et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (n=38). Exenatide vs. Standard treatment alone was evaluated on Percentage of stent strut coverage assessed by optical coherence tomography (p=0.692). Twelve weeks of treatment with exenatide did not significantly improve the percentage of coronary stent strut coverage compared to standard treatment alone in patients with type 2 diabetes (95.0% vs 91.4%, p=0.692).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: