American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 99, Issue 10 , Pages 1399-1402, 15 May 2007

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials of Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

  • Thomas F. Boyden, MD

      Affiliations

    • University Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • University Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    • VA Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  • ,
  • Mauro Moscucci, MD

      Affiliations

    • University Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • Paul S. Chan, MD, MSc

      Affiliations

    • University Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • P. Michael Grossman, MD

      Affiliations

    • University Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • Thomas T. Tsai, MD

      Affiliations

    • University Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • Stanley J. Chetcuti, MD

      Affiliations

    • University Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • Eric R. Bates, MD

      Affiliations

    • University Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • Hitinder S. Gurm, MD

      Affiliations

    • University Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel.: 734-936-5544; fax: 734-764-4142.

Received 12 October 2006; received in revised form 28 December 2006; accepted 28 December 2006.

Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for restenosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting stents (DESs) with bare metal stents (BMSs) showed a marked decrease in in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization with DESs in the total patient population enrolled in the studies, including patients with diabetes. However, it remains unclear whether the antirestenotic benefit of DESs is preserved in the high-risk diabetic subgroup. MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and recent Scientific Sessions databases were searched to identify relevant clinical trials comparing DESs with BMSs. A randomized controlled trial was included if it provided outcome data for patients with diabetes for ≥1 of the following: late lumen loss, in-stent restenosis, or target lesion revascularization. Data were combined using fixed-effects models, and standard tests for heterogeneity were performed. Eight studies with 1,520 patients with diabetes were identified that reported ≥1 outcome of interest. Mean late lumen losses (7 studies) were 0.93 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.510 to 1.348) with BMSs and 0.18 mm (95% CI −0.088 to +0.446) with DESs. For patients receiving a DES, this translated into a marked decrease in in-stent restenosis (7 studies, RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.22, p <0.001) and target lesion revascularization (8 studies, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.45, p <0.001). DES use is associated with a marked decrease in in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization in patients with diabetes. In conclusion, the analysis supports the current widespread use of DESs in these high-risk patients.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0002-9149(07)00261-5

doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.12.069

American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 99, Issue 10 , Pages 1399-1402, 15 May 2007