Stettler, C. et al. Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis. BMJ 337, a1331

Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 17.45). 02/2008; 337(7671):a1331. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a1331
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Marco De Carlo,
  • Source
    • "• Patients with diabetes treated with drug-eluting stents have a lower rate of need for repeat revascularization than patients treated with non-drug-eluting stents[86,87]. Following five years of ARTS I and II studies[85,88], patients with diabetes undergoing angioplasty with drug eluting stents with sirolimus had a lower rate of AMI and less need for revascularization than patients who received non-pharmacological stent (4,8% vs. 11%; 0.04 and p = 33.2% vs. 43.7%; "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a very well known correlation between diabetes and cardiovascular disease but many health care professionals are just concerned with glycemic control, ignoring the paramount importance of controlling other risk factors involved in the pathogenesis of serious cardiovascular diseases. This Position Statement from the Brazilian Diabetes Society was developed to promote increased awareness in relation to six crucial topics dealing with diabetes and cardiovascular disease: Glicemic Control, Cardiovascular Risk Stratification and Screening Coronary Artery Disease, Treatment of Dyslipidemia, Hypertension, Antiplatelet Therapy and Myocardial Revascularization. The issue of what would be the best algorithm for the use of statins in diabetic patients received a special attention and a new Brazilian algorithm was developed by our editorial committee. This document contains 38 recommendations which were classified by their levels of evidence (A, B, C and D). The Editorial Committee included 22 specialists with recognized expertise in diabetes and cardiology.
    Diabetology and Metabolic Syndrome 05/2014; 6(1):58. DOI:10.1186/1758-5996-6-58 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The assumptions of a random-effects network metaanalysis are that (1) the treatment effects are additive (ie, the relative effect of treatment A vs. C can be estimated from the effect of A vs. B and B vs. C) [19] [39] [40], (2) study-specific treatment effects are drawn from a common distribution (exchangeable) [19] [41], and (3) this common distribution or heterogeneity is constant between the different comparisons [19] [41]. We evaluated heterogeneity between studies, defined as the variability of the results across studies within each treatment comparison over and above chance [42], by examining the findings of standard pairwise meta-analyses using visual inspection of the forest Table 1 Treatment categorization Treatment strategy* Treatment strategy code* Type of treatment Inactive control A Placebo in any type or format: tablet, injection, epidural, and so forth Sham treatment in any format No treatment Conventional care B Conservative therapy Conventional care Nonsurgical treatments General practitioner care Disc surgery C "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are numerous treatment approaches for sciatica. Previous systematic reviews have not compared all these strategies together. To compare the clinical effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica simultaneously. Systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched 28 electronic databases and online trial registries, along with bibliographies of previous reviews for comparative studies evaluating any intervention to treat sciatica in adults, with outcome data on global effect or pain intensity. Network meta-analysis methods were used to simultaneously compare all treatment strategies and allow indirect comparisons of treatments between studies. The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; there are no potential conflict of interests. We identified 122 relevant studies; 90 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Interventions were grouped into 21 treatment strategies. Internal and external validity of included studies was very low. For overall recovery as the outcome, compared with inactive control or conventional care, there was a statistically significant improvement following disc surgery, epidural injections, nonopioid analgesia, manipulation, and acupuncture. Traction, percutaneous discectomy, and exercise therapy were significantly inferior to epidural injections or surgery. For pain as the outcome, epidural injections and biological agents were significantly better than inactive control, but similar findings for disc surgery were not statistically significant. Biological agents were significantly better for pain reduction than bed rest, nonopioids, and opioids. Opioids, education/advice alone, bed rest, and percutaneous discectomy were inferior to most other treatment strategies; although these findings represented large effects, they were statistically equivocal. For the first time, many different treatment strategies for sciatica have been compared in the same systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach has provided new data to assist shared decision-making. The findings support the effectiveness of nonopioid medication, epidural injections, and disc surgery. They also suggest that spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and experimental treatments, such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be considered. The findings do not provide support for the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, bed rest, exercise therapy, education/advice (when used alone), percutaneous discectomy, or traction. The issue of how best to estimate the effectiveness of treatment approaches according to their order within a sequential treatment pathway remains an important challenge.
    The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society 10/2013; 15(6). DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.049 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Our decision to perform PCI with placement of a DES at the acute RCA lesion was guided by our patient’s diabetes and the evolving inferior myocardial infarction, after myocardial viability was confirmed on cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, in accordance with the current recommendations [1,7]. The reported chest pain 1 month before his admission and his ECG changes suggested an old anterior myocardial infarction. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Percutaneous coronary intervention with placement of a drug-eluting stent in a diabetic patient with ST-elevation myocardial infarction is a relatively common procedure, and always requires subsequent treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy. It is sometimes necessary to add oral anticoagulation therapy because of individual clinical circumstances, which further increases the risk of bleeding. A 66-year-old hypertensive diabetic man with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding was admitted with an ST-elevation inferior myocardial infarction that had been evolving over 72 h. Electrocardiography showed ST segment elevation in the inferior leads and Q waves in the inferior and anterior leads. He reported a similar episode of chest pain 1 month previously, for which he had not sought medical treatment. Coronary angiography showed chronic occlusion of the mid-left anterior descending coronary artery, and acute occlusion of the mid-right coronary artery. He was treated by percutaneous coronary intervention, with placement of a drug-eluting stent in the right coronary artery. Soon after admission, transthoracic echocardiography showed abnormal left ventricular contractility and a large left intraventricular thrombus. Three weeks after admission, the patient was discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel and aspirin) and oral anticoagulation therapy (acenocoumarol). Four months after discharge, transthoracic echocardiography showed absence of left ventricular thrombus and resolution of the abnormal contractility in the area supplied by the revascularized right coronary artery. Given the high risk of bleeding, oral anticoagulation therapy was stopped. Six months later, transthoracic echocardiography showed recurrent left ventricular apical thrombus, and an underlying hypercoagulable state was ruled out. Oral anticoagulation therapy was restarted on an indefinite basis, and dual antiplatelet therapy was continued. The present case illustrates the need for repeat transthoracic echocardiography following the withdrawal of oral anticoagulation therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, both to monitor thrombus status and to assess left ventricular segmental contraction. In patients who require anticoagulation, avoidance of a drug-eluting stent is strongly preferred and second-generation stents are recommended. The alternative regimen of oral anticoagulation and clopidogrel may be considered in this scenario. In patients with recurrent intraventricular thrombus an underlying hypercoagulable state should be ruled out.
    BMC Research Notes 08/2013; 6(1):348. DOI:10.1186/1756-0500-6-348
Show more