Lai Chi-Cheng, Lin Tsung-Hsien, Yip Hon-Kan, Liu Chun-Peng, Li Ai-Hsien, Shyu Kou-Gi, Chang Shu-Chen, Mar Guang-Yuan
Cardiovascular Center, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC; Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC; Department of Biological Sciences, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC; School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC; Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC.
J Chin Med Assoc. 2016 May;79(5):239-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2015.09.004. Epub 2016 Mar 2.
The outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) versus bare-metal stent (BMS) use in patients with diabetic mellitus (DM) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are rarely reported in Taiwan. This study aimed to investigate the 1-year cardiovascular outcomes of DESs versus BMSs implanted in Taiwanese patients with DM and ACS.
For this study, we collected and analyzed patient information from the database of the Taiwan ACS Full Spectrum registry regarding characteristics and cardiovascular events in participants with DM and ACS who received implantation of either BMS (BMS group) or DES (DES group) from October 2008 to January 2010.
We found that several characteristics significantly varied between the groups. Compared with the BMS group (n = 575), the DES group (n = 199) had significantly lower rates of in-hospital cardiogenic shock (1.5% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.037) and acute renal failure (0.5% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.008), all-cause mortality (5.0% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.048), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 1 year (11.1% vs. 18.6%, p = 0.006) with an identical target vessel revascularization (TVR) rate (6.0% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.395). The BMS group had significantly higher risk-adjusted all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-5.7; p = 0.048] and MACE (HR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-3.9; p = 0.011) at 1 year with identical risks of TVR (HR = 1.3, 95% CI 0.6-2.9; p = 0.505) and nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR = 1.5, 95% CI 0.5-4.4; p = 0.478).
The results of this study support the use of DES over BMS in Taiwanese patients with DM and ACS, providing the clinical benefits of lower rates of total mortality and MACE, and without increased TVR at 1 year in a real-world setting.
在台湾,糖尿病(DM)合并急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者使用药物洗脱支架(DES)与裸金属支架(BMS)的疗效鲜有报道。本研究旨在调查台湾DM合并ACS患者植入DES与BMS后的1年心血管结局。
在本研究中,我们从台湾ACS全谱登记数据库收集并分析了2008年10月至2010年1月期间接受BMS植入(BMS组)或DES植入(DES组)的DM合并ACS参与者的特征和心血管事件的患者信息。
我们发现两组之间的几个特征有显著差异。与BMS组(n = 575)相比,DES组(n = 199)的院内心源性休克发生率(1.5%对4.9%,p = 0.037)、急性肾衰竭发生率(0.5%对4.5%,p = 0.008)、全因死亡率(5.0%对8.9%,p = 0.048)以及1年时的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率(11.1%对18.6%,p = 0.006)均显著更低,而靶血管重建率(TVR)相同(6.0%对7.3%,p = 0.395)。BMS组在1年时的风险调整全因死亡率[风险比(HR)= 2.4,95%置信区间(CI)1.0 - 5.7;p = 0.048]和MACE(HR = 2.2,95% CI 1.2 - 3.9;p = 0.011)显著更高,而TVR风险(HR = 1.3,95% CI 0.6 - 2.9;p = 0.505)和非致命性心肌梗死风险(HR = 1.5,95% CI 0.5 - 4.4;p = 0.478)相同。
本研究结果支持台湾DM合并ACS患者使用DES而非BMS,在现实环境中,DES具有降低总死亡率和MACE发生率的临床益处,且1年时TVR未增加。