Suppr超能文献

糖尿病患者使用紫杉醇洗脱冠状动脉支架:来自5项随机试验的汇总分析。

Paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: pooled analysis from 5 randomized trials.

作者信息

Kirtane Ajay J, Ellis Stephen G, Dawkins Keith D, Colombo Antonio, Grube Eberhard, Popma Jeffrey J, Fahy Martin, Leon Martin B, Moses Jeffrey W, Mehran Roxana, Stone Gregg W

机构信息

Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York 10022, USA.

出版信息

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Feb 19;51(7):708-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.035.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

We sought to examine the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

BACKGROUND

Compared with patients without DM, patients with DM undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are at increased risk for mortality and restenosis. The safety of drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients has recently been called into question by a published meta-analysis of randomized trials.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from 5 prospective, double-blind, randomized trials of PES versus bare-metal stents (BMS) (n = 3,513). Safety and efficacy outcomes through 4 years of follow-up were assessed among the 827 randomized patients (23.6%) with DM.

RESULTS

Patients treated with PES and BMS has similar baseline characteristics among both the diabetic and nondiabetic cohorts within these trials. At 4-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between PES and BMS among diabetic patients in the rates of death (8.4% vs. 10.3%, respectively, p = 0.61), myocardial infarction (6.9% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.17), or stent thrombosis (1.4% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.92). Treatment of diabetic patients with PES compared with treatment with BMS was associated with a significant and durable reduction in target lesion revascularization over the 4-year follow-up period (12.4% vs. 24.7%, p < 0.0001). The relative safety and efficacy of PES compared with the relative safety and efficacy of BMS in diabetic patients extended to both those requiring and not requiring insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

In these 5 randomized trials in which patients with single, primarily noncomplex lesions were enrolled, treatment with PES compared with treatment with BMS was safe and effective, resulting in markedly lower rates of target lesion revascularization at 4 years, with similar rates of death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis.

摘要

目的

我们旨在研究紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)在糖尿病(DM)患者中的安全性和有效性。

背景

与非糖尿病患者相比,接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的糖尿病患者死亡和再狭窄风险增加。一项已发表的随机试验荟萃分析最近对药物洗脱支架在糖尿病患者中的安全性提出了质疑。

方法

患者水平的数据来自5项关于PES对比裸金属支架(BMS)的前瞻性、双盲、随机试验(n = 3513)。在827例随机分组的糖尿病患者(23.6%)中评估了4年随访期内的安全性和有效性结果。

结果

在这些试验中,接受PES和BMS治疗的患者在糖尿病和非糖尿病队列中的基线特征相似。在4年随访时,糖尿病患者中,PES和BMS在死亡率(分别为8.4%和10.3%,p = 0.61)、心肌梗死发生率(6.9%和8.9%,p = 0.17)或支架血栓形成率(1.4%和1.2%,p = 0.92)方面无显著差异。与BMS治疗相比,PES治疗糖尿病患者在4年随访期内与靶病变血运重建的显著且持久降低相关(12.4%对24.7%,p < 0.0001)。与BMS相比,PES在糖尿病患者中的相对安全性和有效性扩展至需要和不需要胰岛素治疗的患者。

结论

在这5项纳入单一、主要为非复杂性病变患者的随机试验中,与BMS治疗相比,PES治疗安全有效,4年时靶病变血运重建率显著降低,死亡、心肌梗死和支架血栓形成率相似。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验