Abizaid Alexandre, Costa Marco A, Blanchard Didier, Albertal Mariano, Eltchaninoff Hélèn, Guagliumi Giulio, Geert-Jan Laarman, Abizaid Andrea S, Sousa Amanda G M R, Wuelfert Egon, Wietze Lindeboom, Sousa J Eduardo, Serruys Patrick W, Morice Marie-Claude
Institute Dante Pazzanese of Cardiology, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Eur Heart J. 2004 Jan;25(2):107-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ehj.2003.11.002.
Patients with diabetes mellitus have less favourable outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than non-diabetics. We performed a subgroup analysis of the multicentre RAVEL trial to examine the impact of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) on outcomes in diabetic patients. The RAVEL study randomized 238 patients to treatment with either sirolimus-eluting or bare metal stents. Forty-four patients were diabetic; 19 received sirolimus-eluting stents and 25 were treated with bare metal stents. The differences in outcomes between diabetic and non-diabetic patients treated with SES (n=101) were also assessed. Follow-up angiography was performed at 6 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) were analysed at 12-month follow-up. Six-month in-stent late lumen loss was significantly lower for the diabetic SES than the bare stent group (0.07+/-0.2 vs 0.82+/-0.5mm; P<0.001) and similar to that in non-diabetics treated with SES (-0.03+/-0.27mm). There was zero restenosis in the SES groups (diabetic and non-diabetic) compared to a 42% rate in the diabetic population assigned to bare metal stents (P=0.001). After 12 months, there was one non-Q-wave MI and one non-cardiac death in the diabetic SES group, while 12 patients in the bare metal stent group had MACE (one death, two MI, nine TLR) (P=0.01)-an event-free survival rate of 90% vs 52%, respectively (P<0.01). There were no TLRs in both SES groups compared to 36% rate in the diabetic bare metal stent group (P=0.007). Conclusion Diabetics treated with SES were associated with a virtual abolition of neointimal proliferation and low event rates at long-term follow-up.
糖尿病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后的预后不如非糖尿病患者。我们对多中心RAVEL试验进行了亚组分析,以研究西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)对糖尿病患者预后的影响。RAVEL研究将238例患者随机分为西罗莫司洗脱支架治疗组或裸金属支架治疗组。44例患者为糖尿病患者;19例接受西罗莫司洗脱支架治疗,25例接受裸金属支架治疗。我们还评估了接受SES治疗的糖尿病患者与非糖尿病患者(n = 101)之间的预后差异。在6个月时进行随访血管造影。在12个月随访时分析定义为死亡、心肌梗死(MI)或靶病变血管重建(TLR)的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)。糖尿病SES组6个月时支架内晚期管腔丢失显著低于裸支架组(0.07±0.2 vs 0.82±0.5mm;P<0.001),与接受SES治疗的非糖尿病患者相似(-0.03±0.27mm)。SES组(糖尿病和非糖尿病)均无再狭窄,而分配至裸金属支架的糖尿病患者再狭窄率为42%(P = 0.001)。12个月后,糖尿病SES组发生1例非Q波心肌梗死和1例非心源性死亡,而裸金属支架组有12例患者发生MACE(1例死亡、2例心肌梗死、9例靶病变血管重建)(P = 0.01)——无事件生存率分别为90%和52%(P<0.01)。与糖尿病裸金属支架组36%的靶病变血管重建率相比,SES组均无靶病变血管重建(P = 0.007)。结论接受SES治疗的糖尿病患者在长期随访中内膜增生几乎消失且事件发生率较低。