Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis

Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 16.38). 02/2008; 337(7671):a1331. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a1331
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare the effectiveness and safety of three types of stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, and bare metal) in people with and without diabetes mellitus.
Collaborative network meta-analysis.
Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), relevant websites, reference lists, conference abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and proceedings of advisory panels for the US Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers and trialists provided additional data.
Network meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison method to combine direct within trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Overall mortality was the primary safety end point, target lesion revascularisation the effectiveness end point.
35 trials in 3852 people with diabetes and 10,947 people without diabetes contributed to the analyses. Inconsistency of the network was substantial for overall mortality in people with diabetes and seemed to be related to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (P value for interaction 0.02). Restricting the analysis to trials with a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more, inconsistency was reduced considerably and hazard ratios for overall mortality were near one for all comparisons in people with diabetes: sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.88 (95% credibility interval 0.55 to 1.30), paclitaxel eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.91 (0.60 to 1.38), and sirolimus eluting stents compared with paclitaxel eluting stents 0.95 (0.63 to 1.43). In people without diabetes, hazard ratios were unaffected by the restriction. Both drug eluting stents were associated with a decrease in revascularisation rates compared with bare metal stents in people both with and without diabetes.
In trials that specified a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more after stent implantation, drug eluting stents seemed safe and effective in people both with and without diabetes.


Available from: Marco De Carlo, Apr 24, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Geographical miss (GM), representing suboptimal drug-eluting stent deployment, is associated with an increased risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) and myocardial infarction. The impact of suboptimal stenting techniques on clinical outcomes in diabetics remains unknown. Methods and Results: Stent deployment Techniques on cLinicaL outcomes of patients treated with the cypheR (TM) stent (STLLR) is the first multicenter, large trial to prospectively evaluate outcomes associated with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) deployment techniques. Axial GM and longitudinal GM (LGM), defined as a balloon injured segment or a diseased segment not covered by a SES, were assessed by an independent core laboratory. One-year outcomes between diabetics and non-diabetics and their relationship with GM were assessed. This substudy included 1,336 patients, 28.8% with diabetes. In non-LGM patients, TLR was similarly low in both diabetics and non-diabetics (2.0% vs. 2.0%, P=NS). However, TLR increased 4.1 times in diabetics (8.0%) and 1.9 times in non-diabetics (3.8%) in the presence of LGM (P=0.03). Axial GM had no impact on outcomes. By univariate analysis, stent length, acute gain, and LGM were the predictors of TLR in the total cohort. However, by multivariate analysis, acute gain was the only predictor of TLR (P=0.03), independently of LGM or diabetes. Conclusions: Acute gain is the exclusive predictor of TLR after SES implantation. Particularly in diabetics, the negative impact of LGM on TLR seems to be amplified. Diligent SES deployment for larger acute gain is critical to improve clinical outcomes. (Circ J 2011; 75: 2113-2119)
    Circulation Journal 09/2011; 75(9):2113-2119. DOI:10.1253/circj.CJ-10-0647 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not in any way whatsoever override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and, where appropriate and/or necessary, in consultation with that patient and the patient's care provider. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from giving full and careful consideration to the relevant official, updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.
    Kardiologia polska 08/2014; 72(12):1253-379. DOI:10.5603/KP.2014.0224 · 0.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Contemporary large-scale data, regarding in-hospital outcomes depending on the types of stent used for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is lacking. We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2006 to 2011 using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure code 36.06 (bare-metal coronary artery stent, BMS) or 36.07 (drug-eluting coronary artery stent, DES) for PCI. All analyses were performed using the designated weighting specified to the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to minimize bias. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Wald's chi-square test was used for categorical variables. We built a hierarchical 2 level model adjusted for multiple confounding factors, with hospital identification incorporated as random effects in the model and propensity match analyses were used to adjust confounding variables. A total of 665,804 procedures were analyzed, which were representative of 3,277,884 procedures in the United States. Use of bare-metal stents (BMS) was associated with greater occurrence of. in-hospital mortality compared with that of drugeluting stents (DES; 1.4% vs 0.5%, p <0.001). The association stayed significant after adjustment of various possible confounding factors (odds ratio for DES versus BMS 0.59 [0.54 to 0.64, p <0.001]) and also in propensity matched cohorts (1.2% vs 0.7%, p <0.001). The results continued to be similar in the following high-risk subgroups: diabetes (0.57 [0.50 to 0.64, <0.001]), acute myocardial infarction and/or shock (0.53 [0.49 to 0.57, <0.001]), age >80 (0.66 [0.58 to 0.74, <0.001]), and multivessel PCI (0.55 [0.46 to 0.66, <0.001]). In conclusion, DES use was associated with lesser in-hospital mortality compared with BMS. This outcome benefit was seen across subgroups in various subgroups including elderly, diabetics, and acute myocardial infarction as well as multivessel interventions.
    The American journal of cardiology 09/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.08.033 · 3.43 Impact Factor