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: Differential long-term outcomes of zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic and nondiabetic patients: two-year subgroup analysis of the ZEST randomized trial.
    Author: Jang SJ, Park DW, Kim WJ, Kim YH, Yun SC, Kang SJ, Lee SW, Lee CW, Park SW, Park SJ.
    Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2013 Jun 01; 81(7):1106-14. PubMed ID: 22899589.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the differential treatment effects of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) according to diabetic status. BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients have a higher risk of ischemic complications after stenting than nondiabetic patients. METHODS: Using data from the ZEST randomized trial, comparing ZES with SES and PES, we evaluated relative outcomes among stents in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Of the 2,645 patients enrolled in the ZEST trial, 760 (29%) had diabetes mellitus. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar in the three stent groups, regardless of diabetic status. In diabetic patients, ZES showed similar rates of MACE as compared to PES (13.8% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.58), but higher rates of MACE than SES (13.8% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.05). In nondiabetic patients, ZES showed similar rates of MACE as compared to SES (10.3% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.72), whereas significantly lower rates of MACE compared to PES (10.3% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.01). In comparing the ZES and SES groups, there was a substantial interaction between diabetic status and stent types on MACE occurrence (Interaction P = 0.07). However, in comparison of ZES and PES, there were no significant interactions between diabetes and stent type on MACE (Interaction P = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients, SES showed the lowest rate of MACE compared with ZES and PES. But, in nondiabetic patients, SES and ZES showed significantly lower rates of MACE than PES. ZES shows a diabetes-related interaction on MACE compared with SES, but not with PES.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]