Department of Cardiology, Japanese Red Cross Okayama Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
J Cardiol. 2012 Nov;60(5):361-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2012.07.002. Epub 2012 Aug 11.
Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with worse clinical outcomes, the efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in Japanese patients and differences in effectiveness between different DES types remain unknown.
Five-hundred and sixty-two consecutive patients (183 with DM, 379 without DM) with 676 lesions were treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES, n=531; 160 DM group, 371 non-DM group) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, n=145; 64 and 81, respectively). We assessed the initial and 8-month follow-up clinical and angiographic outcomes.
There were no significant differences in clinical and lesion characteristics, although the pre-minimum luminal diameter was smaller in the DM group (p=0.016). The risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or recurrent angina pectoris, was higher in the DM group compared with the non-DM group (17.4% vs 9.5%, p=0.007). Among diabetic patients, although SES reduced late loss by 0.45 mm (p<0.001) and the binary restenosis rate by 66.4% (7.4% vs 22.0%, p<0.001) compared with PES at 8 months, it did not reduce target lesion revascularization or MACE, as in the non-DM group.
Diabetic patients have worse mid-term prognosis than non-diabetic patients undergoing PCI with DES. Although the superiority of SES in terms of late loss or restenosis may not play a clinically meaningful role in the treatment of diabetic patients, this phenomenon was independent of the presence of diabetes.
虽然经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)在糖尿病患者中与更差的临床结局相关,但药物洗脱支架(DES)在日本患者中的疗效以及不同 DES 类型之间的有效性差异仍不清楚。
562 例连续患者(183 例糖尿病患者,379 例非糖尿病患者)的 676 处病变接受了西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES,n=531;160 例糖尿病组,371 例非糖尿病组)或紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES,n=145;分别为 64 例和 81 例)治疗。我们评估了初始和 8 个月随访的临床和血管造影结果。
尽管糖尿病组的最小管腔直径更小(p=0.016),但两组的临床和病变特征无显著差异。糖尿病组的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)风险(定义为心脏死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、充血性心力衰竭或复发性心绞痛)高于非糖尿病组(17.4%比 9.5%,p=0.007)。在糖尿病患者中,尽管 SES 在 8 个月时将晚期丢失减少了 0.45 毫米(p<0.001)并将二元再狭窄率降低了 66.4%(7.4%比 22.0%,p<0.001),但与 PES 相比,它并未降低靶病变血运重建或 MACE,非糖尿病患者组也是如此。
与接受 DES 行 PCI 的非糖尿病患者相比,糖尿病患者具有更差的中期预后。尽管 SES 在晚期丢失或再狭窄方面的优势在治疗糖尿病患者时可能没有发挥出有临床意义的作用,但这种现象独立于糖尿病的存在。