Outcomes of diabetics receiving bare-metal stents versus drug-eluting stents.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
We sought to determine if differences existed in in-hospital outcomes, long-term rates of target vessel revascularization (TVR), and/or long-term mortality trends between patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either a drug-eluting stent(s) (DES) or a bare metal stent(s) (BMS).
BACKGROUND
Short- and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing PCI with DES versus BMS remain inconsistent between randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
METHODS
Data were collected prospectively on diabetics undergoing PCI with either DES or BMS from January 2000 to June 2008. Demographic information, medical histories, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term TVR and mortality trends were obtained for all patients.
RESULTS
A total of 1,319 patients were included in the study. Diabetics receiving DES had a significant reduction in index admission MACE compared to diabetics receiving BMS. Using multivariable adjustment, after a mean follow-up of 2.5 years (maximum 5 years), diabetics who received DES had a 38% decreased risk of TVR compared to diabetics with BMS [HR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.43-0.90)]; diabetics with DES had an insignificant adjusted improvement in long-term survival compared to diabetics with BMS [HR 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-1.00)]. These long-term survival and TVR rates were confirmed using propensity scoring.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of DES when compared with BMS among diabetics undergoing PCI is associated with significant improvement in long-term TVR, with an insignificant similar trend in all-cause mortality. The long-term results of this observational study are consistent with prior RCTs after adjusting for confounding variables.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.