Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds and metallic stents in diabetic patients: a patient-level pooled analysis of the prospective ABSORB DM Benelux Study, TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS

Cardiovascular Diabetology

G. De Luca¹  E. Fabris²  E. Kedhi³  B. Berta⁴  T. M. Hommels⁴  R. S. Hermanides⁴  C. von Birgelen⁵  E. H. Ploumen⁵ 

[1] AOU Maggiore della Carità, Eastern Piedmont University, Novara, Italy;Cardiovascular Department, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy;Department of Cardiology, Hôpital Erasme Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium;Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands;Medisch Spectrum Twente, Thoraxcentrum & University of Twente, Thoraxcentrum, The Netherlands;

关键词: Bioresorbable scaffolds;    Drug-eluting stents;    Diabetes mellitus;    Coronary artery disease;    Percutaneous coronary intervention;    Device thrombosis;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12933-020-01116-2

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundSeveral studies compared everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (EE-BRS) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES), but only few assessed these devices in patients with diabetes mellitus.AimTo evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of all-comer patients with diabetes mellitus up to 2 years after treatment with EE-BRS or EES.MethodsWe performed a post hoc pooled analysis of patient-level data in diabetic patients who were treated with EE-BRS or EES in 3 prospective clinical trials: The ABSORB DM Benelux Study (NTR5447), TWENTE (NTR1256/NCT01066650) and DUTCH PEERS (NTR2413/NCT01331707). Primary endpoint of the analysis was target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or clinically driven target vessel revascularization, as well as definite or probable device thrombosis (ST).ResultsA total of 499 diabetic patients were assessed, of whom 150 received EE-BRS and 249 received EES. Total available follow-up was 222.6 patient years (PY) in the EE-BRS and 464.9 PY in the EES group. The adverse events rates were similar in both treatment groups for TLF (7.2 vs. 5.2 events per 100 PY, p = 0.39; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77–2.87), p = 0.24), MACE (9.1 vs. 8.3 per 100 PY, p = 0.83; adjusted HR = 1.23 (95% CI: 0.70–2.17), p = 0.47), and ST (0.9 vs. 0.6 per 100 PY, p > 0.99).ConclusionIn this patient-level pooled analysis of patients with diabetes mellitus from 3 clinical trials, EE-BRS showed clinical outcomes that were quite similar to EES.

【 授权许可】

CC BY