Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2010
Paclitaxel-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetes mellitus: a report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Wolf William M, Vlachos Helen A, Marroquin Oscar C, Lee Joon S, Smith Conrad, Anderson William D, Schindler John T, Holper Elizabeth M, Abbott J Dawn, Williams David O, Laskey Warren K, Kip Kevin E, Kelsey Sheryl F, Mulukutla Suresh R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a powerful predictor of adverse events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis rates compared with bare metal stents; however, controversy remains regarding which drug-eluting stents provides greater benefit in patients with diabetes. Accordingly, we compared the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) among diabetic patients in a contemporary registry.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry, we evaluated 2-year outcomes of diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions with SES (n=677) and PES (n=328). Clinical and demographic characteristics, including age, body mass index, insulin use, left ventricular function, and aspirin/clopidogrel use postprocedure, did not differ significantly between the groups except that PES-treated patients had a greater frequency of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. At the 2-year follow-up, no significant differences were observed between PES and SES with regard to safety or efficacy end points. PES- and SES-treated patients had similar rates of death (10.7% versus 8.2%, P=0.20), death and myocardial infarction (14.9% versus 13.6%, P=0.55), repeat revascularization (14.8% versus 17.8%, P=0.36), and stent thrombosis (1.3% versus 1.3%, P=0.95). After adjustment, no significant differences between the 2 stent types in any outcome were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: PES and SES are equally efficacious and have similar safety profiles in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in clinical practice.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry, we evaluated 2-year outcomes of diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions with SES (n=677) and PES (n=328). Clinical and demographic characteristics, including age, body mass index, insulin use, left ventricular function, and aspirin/clopidogrel use postprocedure, did not differ significantly between the groups except that PES-treated patients had a greater frequency of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. At the 2-year follow-up, no significant differences were observed between PES and SES with regard to safety or efficacy end points. PES- and SES-treated patients had similar rates of death (10.7% versus 8.2%, P=0.20), death and myocardial infarction (14.9% versus 13.6%, P=0.55), repeat revascularization (14.8% versus 17.8%, P=0.36), and stent thrombosis (1.3% versus 1.3%, P=0.95). After adjustment, no significant differences between the 2 stent types in any outcome were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: PES and SES are equally efficacious and have similar safety profiles in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in clinical practice.