首页> 外文期刊>Cardiovascular revascularization medicine: including molecular interventions >Sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic and non-diabetic patients within sirolimus-eluting stent restenosis: Results from the ISAR-DESIRE 2 trial
【24h】

Sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic and non-diabetic patients within sirolimus-eluting stent restenosis: Results from the ISAR-DESIRE 2 trial

机译:西罗莫司洗脱支架再狭窄内糖尿病和非糖尿病患者的西罗莫司洗脱支架与紫杉醇洗脱支架:ISAR-DESIRE 2试验的结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Concern exists relating to potential attenuated efficacy of limus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. In this respect diabetic patients with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) failure requiring reintervention may be expected to derive particular benefit from a treatment-switch to paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation. Objective: The aim of the current report was to investigate outcomes of patients with SES restenosis randomized to treatment with SES (same stent strategy) or PES (switch stent strategy) in the pre-specified subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Methods: In the setting of ISAR-DESIRE 2 trial, 450 patients with clinically significant SES restenosis were randomly assigned to receive either SES or PES. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 6-8. month follow-up angiography. Secondary endpoints were binary angiographic restenosis (diameter stenosis . 50%) and target lesion revascularization (TLR), the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) and definite stent thrombosis at 12. months. Results: Of 450 patients enrolled, 162 (36.0%) had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. In patients with diabetes 86 patients were randomly assigned to SES versus 76 to PES. In patients without diabetes 139 were assigned to SES versus 149 to PES. Late loss was comparable between SES and PES both in patients with diabetes (0.38±0.59mm vs. 0.37±0.59mm; p=0.97) and without (0.41±0.67mm vs. 0.38±0.6mm; p=0.98; pinteraction=0.89). Similarly binary restenosis was comparable between SES and PES in patients with diabetes (19.0% vs. 26.0%; p=0.32) or without (18.9% vs. 17.8%; p=0.98; pinteraction=0.36). TLR, death or MI and definite stent thrombosis were also similar in SES versus PES treatment groups regardless of diabetes status. Conclusions: In cases of SES-restenosis, treatment with either repeat SES or switch to PES was associated with a comparable degree of efficacy, regardless of diabetic status.
机译:背景:存在着与糖尿病患者中的limus洗脱支架潜在的衰减功效有关的担忧。在这方面,可以预期需要重新干预的患有西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)衰竭的糖尿病患者将从治疗转换为紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)植入中获得特别的好处。目的:本报告的目的是调查在有和无糖尿病患者的预先指定的亚组中,随机接受SES(相同支架策略)或PES(开关支架策略)治疗的SES再狭窄患者的结局。方法:在ISAR-DESIRE 2试验中,将450例具有临床意义的SES再狭窄的患者随机分配为接受SES或PES。主要终点是支架内晚期丢失(6-8)。每月随访血管造影。次要终点是二进制血管造影再狭窄(直径狭窄>。50%)和靶病变血运重建(TLR),死亡或心肌梗死(MI)和在12个月时明确的支架血栓形成。结果:在450名患者中,有162名(36.0%)被诊断出患有糖尿病。在糖尿病患者中,有86例患者被随机分配为SES,而76例患者被随机分配为PES。在没有糖尿病的患者中,有139人被分配为SES,而149人被分配为PES。糖尿病患者的SES和PES的迟发损失相当(0.38±0.59mm vs. 0.37±0.59mm; p = 0.97)和无糖尿病患者(0.41±0.67mm vs. 0.38±0.6mm; p = 0.98;拼写= 0.89 )。同样,在糖尿病患者中,SES和PES之间的二元再狭窄在SES和PES之间是相当的(19.0%vs. 26.0%; p = 0.32)或无糖尿病患者(18.9%vs. 17.8%; p = 0.98;拼写= 0.36)。无论糖尿病状态如何,SES与PES治疗组的TLR,死亡或MI和明确的支架血栓形成也相似。结论:在SES再狭窄的情况下,无论糖尿病状态如何,重复SES或改用PES的治疗效果均相当。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号