These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: with analyses for diabetic and nondiabetic subpopulation.
    Author: Cho Y, Yang HM, Park KW, Chung WY, Choi DJ, Seo WW, Jeong KT, Chae SC, Lee MY, Hur SH, Chae JK, Seong IW, Yoon JH, Oh SK, Kim DI, Park KS, Rha SW, Jang YS, Bae JH, Hong TJ, Cho MC, Kim YJ, Jeong MH, Kim MJ, Park SK, Chae IH, Kim HS, KAMIR Investigators.
    Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2010 May; 3(5):498-506. PubMed ID: 20488406.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine which drug-eluting stent (DES) is preferable for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to elucidate the impact of diabetes mellitus on the outcome of each DES. BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown the benefit of DES in patients with STEMI. Diabetes mellitus might differentially affect outcomes of each DES. METHODS: We analyzed the large-scale, prospective, observational KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry) study, which enrolled 4,416 STEMI patients (26% with diabetes) treated with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Primary outcome was major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: In the overall population, the MACE rate at 1 year was significantly higher in the PES than the SES group (11.6% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.014), which was mainly due to increased TLR (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). In the diabetic subgroup, however, the MACE rate was not significantly different between PES and SES (14.5% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.217), in contrast to the nondiabetic subgroup, where PES was inferior to SES as in the overall population. Matching by propensity-score did not significantly alter these results. For TLR, there was interaction between the type of stents and diabetes mellitus (unadjusted: p = 0.052; after propensity-score matching: p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The PES was inferior to the SES in the overall population, with regard to the occurrence of MACE and TLR. However, subgroup analysis for diabetic subjects showed no differences in clinical outcomes between PES and SES. These results suggest that diabetes differentially affects the outcome of first-generation DES.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]