Cargando…

Effect of Glycemic Control During Follow-up on Late Target Lesion Revascularization After Implantation of New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Diabetes ― A Single-Center Observational Study ―

Background: Few studies have investigated the importance of glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) for reducing the incidence of late target lesion revascularization (TLR) after implantation of new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods and Results: We retrospectively identi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fujita, Takanari, Takeda, Teruki, Tsujino, Yasushi, Yamaji, Masayuki, Sakaguchi, Tomoko, Maeda, Keiko, Mabuchi, Hiroshi, Murakami, Tomoyuki, Morimoto, Takeshi, Kimura, Takeshi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Japanese Circulation Society 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7819662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33693273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1253/circrep.CR-20-0065
Descripción
Sumario:Background: Few studies have investigated the importance of glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) for reducing the incidence of late target lesion revascularization (TLR) after implantation of new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods and Results: We retrospectively identified 1,568 patients who underwent new-generation DES implantation. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on diabetic status and glycemic control 1 year after the procedure: those without DM (non-DM group; n=1,058) and those with DM at follow-up with either good (HbA1c <7%; n=328) or poor (HbA1c ≥7%; n=182) control. The cumulative 5-year incidence of clinically driven late TLR after the index procedure was significantly higher in DM with poor control at follow-up than in those with good control at follow-up or non-DM (14%, 4.8%, and 2.9%, respectively; P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that poor control at follow-up was significantly associated with a higher risk of clinically driven late TLR compared with the non-DM group (hazard ratio [HR] 4.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.50–8.16, P<0.0001). However, good control at follow-up group was not associated with a higher risk of clinically driven late TLR compared with the non-DM group (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.68–2.56, P=0.38). Conclusions: DM patients with poor glycemic control at follow-up had a significantly higher risk of clinically driven late TLR than non-DM patients.