Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent vs. contemporary durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

被引:8
|
作者
Bavishi, Chirag [1 ]
Chugh, Yashasvi [2 ,3 ]
Kimura, Takeshi [4 ]
Natsuaki, Masahiro [5 ]
Kaiser, Christoph [6 ]
Gordon, Paul [1 ]
Aronow, Herbert D. [1 ]
Abbott, Jinnette Dawn [1 ]
机构
[1] Rhode Isl Hosp, Lifespan Cardiovasc Inst, Providence, RI 02903 USA
[2] Mt Sinai St Lukes Hosp, New York, NY USA
[3] Mt Sinai West Hosp, New York, NY USA
[4] Kyoto Univ, Grad Sch Med, Sakyo Ku, Kyoto, Japan
[5] Saga Univ, Saga, Japan
[6] Univ Hosp, Basel, Switzerland
关键词
Biodegradable polymer; Durable polymer; Drug-eluting stent; Diabetes; EVEROLIMUS; SAFETY; THROMBOSIS; OUTCOMES; EFFICACY; LEADERS;
D O I
10.1093/ehjqcco/qcz031
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Aims The biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) offer controlled drug elution and complete degradation of the polymer over time, eventually lowering the risk for chronic inflammation and neoatherosclerosis, which can be particularly helpful in patients with diabetes. While BP-DES and durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) have demonstrated comparable efficacy in all-comers population, their efficacy and safety in patients with diabetes remains uncertain. Methods and results Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with contemporary DP-DES in patients with diabetes. Study investigators were contacted to obtain additional data. The primary outcome was efficacy in terms of target-vessel revascularization (TVR) and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). We also evaluated the following safety outcomes separately: all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Eleven RCTs including 5190 diabetic patients were included. At the longest available follow-up (mean 2.7 years), there was no significant difference in TLR [relative risk (RR): 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.24; P = 0.80] or TVR (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.34; P = 0.76). Safety outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and MI were similar between the two groups. Stent thrombosis rates were also similar between BP-DES and DP-DES groups (1.66% vs. 1.83%; RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.54-1.31; P = 0.45). The heterogeneity was low and fixed-effect model yielded similar results. Meta-regression analysis showed no relationship between insulin requiring diabetes and difference in TLR or stent thrombosis between BP-DES and DP-DES. Conclusion Overall, BP-DESs have similar safety and efficacy profiles compared to contemporary DP-DES in patients with diabetes.
引用
收藏
页码:81 / 88
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Effect of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus biocompatible polymer everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis
    Shang, Yong-Zhi
    Li, Bao-Yin
    Feng, Yan
    Liu, Jie-Yun
    Yang, Xiu-Ling
    Qin, Lei
    ACTA CARDIOLOGICA, 2017, 72 (02) : 196 - 204
  • [22] Vascular Response to Drug-Eluting Stent With Biodegradable vs. Durable Polymer - Optical Coherence Tomography Substudy of the NEXT
    Kubo, Takashi
    Akasaka, Takashi
    Kozuma, Ken
    Kimura, Kazuo
    Fusazaki, Tetsuya
    Okura, Hiroyuki
    Shinke, Toshiro
    Ino, Yasushi
    Hasegawa, Takao
    Takashima, Hiroaki
    Takamisawa, Itaru
    Yamaguchi, Hiroshi
    Igarashi, Keiichi
    Kadota, Kazushige
    Tanabe, Kengo
    Nakagawa, Yoshihisa
    Muramatsu, Toshiya
    Morino, Yoshihiro
    Kimura, Takeshi
    CIRCULATION JOURNAL, 2014, 78 (10) : 2408 - 2414
  • [23] Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: An Update Meta-Analysis
    Wang, Yanyu
    Dong, Pingshuan
    Li, Ling
    Li, Xiaoling
    Wang, Hongyun
    Yang, Xuming
    Wang, Shaoxin
    Li, Zhuanzhen
    Shang, Xiyan
    CARDIOVASCULAR DRUGS AND THERAPY, 2014, 28 (04) : 379 - 385
  • [24] Biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stents versus contemporary drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yin, Juntao
    Li, Yang
    Chen, Yangyang
    Wang, Chaoyang
    Song, Xiaoyong
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01)
  • [25] Comparison of biodegradable and durable polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis
    Yuan, Haoyong
    Wu, Zhongshi
    Lu, Ting
    Wei, Tingting
    Zeng, Yifan
    Liu, Yalin
    Huang, Can
    BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (06):
  • [26] Five-year clinical efficacy and safety of contemporary thin-strut biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials
    Kobayashi, Tomoaki
    Sotomi, Yohei
    Suzuki, Satoshi
    Suwannasom, Pannipa
    Nakatani, Shimpei
    Morino, Yoshihiro
    Ako, Junya
    Kozuma, Ken
    Hirayama, Atsushi
    Sakata, Yasushi
    Higuchi, Yoshiharu
    CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTION AND THERAPEUTICS, 2020, 35 (03) : 250 - 258
  • [27] Degradable polymer drug-eluting stents: a durable benefit?
    Mehilli, Julinda
    LANCET, 2013, 381 (9867) : 607 - 609
  • [28] Polymer-free drug-eluting stents versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stents An updated meta-analysis
    Chen, Yun-lin
    Fan, Jinqi
    Chen, Guozhu
    Cao, Li
    Lu, Li
    Xu, Yanping
    Yin, Yuehui
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (15)
  • [29] Safety and efficacy of degradable vs. permanent polymer drug-eluting stents: A meta-analysis of 18,395 patients from randomized trials
    Wang, Yuqing
    Liu, Shijian
    Luo, Yuanlin
    Wang, Fangjuan
    Liu, Huanyun
    Li, Lufeng
    Zhao, Xiaohui
    Huang, Lan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2014, 173 (01) : 100 - 109
  • [30] Biodegradable- Versus Durable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents for STEMI
    Pilgrim, Thomas
    Muller, Olivier
    Heg, Dik
    Roffi, Marco
    Kurz, David J.
    Moarof, Igal
    Weilenmann, Daniel
    Kaiser, Christoph
    Tapponnier, Maxime
    Losdat, Sylvain
    Eeckhout, Eric
    Valgimigli, Marco
    Juni, Peter
    Windecker, Stephan
    Iglesias, Juan F.
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2021, 14 (06) : 639 - 648