Cargando…

Comparison of First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in an All-Comer Population of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (from Katowice-Zabrze Registry)

BACKGROUND: This study compared safety and efficacy of first- and second-generation DES in an unrestricted, real-life population of diabetic patients undergoing PCI. MATERIAL/METHODS: The study was a subanalysis of diabetic patients from the all-comer Katowice-Zabrze Registry of patients undergoing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kawecki, Damian, Morawiec, Beata, Dola, Janusz, Wańha, Wojciech, Smolka, Grzegorz, Pluta, Aleksandra, Marcinkiewicz, Kamil, Ochała, Andrzej, Nowalany-Kozielska, Ewa, Wojakowski, Wojciech
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629626/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26506478
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.895095
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study compared safety and efficacy of first- and second-generation DES in an unrestricted, real-life population of diabetic patients undergoing PCI. MATERIAL/METHODS: The study was a subanalysis of diabetic patients from the all-comer Katowice-Zabrze Registry of patients undergoing PCI with the implantation of either first- (Paclitaxel-, Sirolimus-eluting stents) or second-generation DES (Zotarolimus-, Everolimus-, Biolimus-eluting stents). Efficacy defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stroke) and safety defined as stent thrombosis (ST) were evaluated at 1 year. RESULTS: From the total of 1916 patients, 717 were diabetics. Among them, 257 (36%) were treated with first-generation DES (230 [89%] Paclitaxel-eluting stents, 27 [11%] Sirolimus-eluting stents), 460 with second-generation DES (171 [37%] Zotarolimus-eluting stents, 243 [53%] Everolimus-eluting stents, 46 [10%] Biolimus-eluting stents). Rate of MACCE was equal in both groups (p=0.54). Second-generation DES had a better safety profile than first-generation DES (log-rank for cumulative ST at 1 year p<0.001). First-generation DES was a risk factor for ST (HR 5.75 [1.16–28.47], p=0.03) but not for MACCE (HR 0.89 [0.6–1.32], p=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-life setting of diabetic patients undergoing PCI, second-generation DES had lower risk of ST and similar MACCE rate compared to first-generation DES.