Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Newer generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) improve clinical outcome compared to early generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). We investigated whether the advantage in safety and efficacy also holds among the high-risk population of diabetic patients during long-term follow-up.
METHODS: Between 2002 and 2009, a total of 1963 consecutive diabetic patients treated with the unrestricted use of EES (n=804), SES (n=612) and PES (n=547) were followed throughout three years for the occurrence of cardiac events at two academic institutions. The primary end point was the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 1.0% of EES, 3.7% of SES and 3.8% of PES treated patients ([EES vs. SES] adjusted HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.88; [EES vs. PES] adjusted HR=0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.67). Similarly, patients treated with EES had a lower risk of target-lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to patients treated with SES and PES ([EES vs. SES], 5.6% vs. 11.5%, adjusted HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.83; [EES vs. PES], 5.6% vs. 11.3%, adjusted HR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77). There were no differences in other safety end points, such as all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE.
CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients, the unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved outcomes, specifically a significant decrease in the need for TLR and ST compared to early generation SES and PES throughout 3-year follow-up.
METHODS: Between 2002 and 2009, a total of 1963 consecutive diabetic patients treated with the unrestricted use of EES (n=804), SES (n=612) and PES (n=547) were followed throughout three years for the occurrence of cardiac events at two academic institutions. The primary end point was the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 1.0% of EES, 3.7% of SES and 3.8% of PES treated patients ([EES vs. SES] adjusted HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.88; [EES vs. PES] adjusted HR=0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.67). Similarly, patients treated with EES had a lower risk of target-lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to patients treated with SES and PES ([EES vs. SES], 5.6% vs. 11.5%, adjusted HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.83; [EES vs. PES], 5.6% vs. 11.3%, adjusted HR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77). There were no differences in other safety end points, such as all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE.
CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients, the unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved outcomes, specifically a significant decrease in the need for TLR and ST compared to early generation SES and PES throughout 3-year follow-up.
摘要：
暂无翻译
