4.5 Article

Efficacy of Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in Patients With Impaired Glucose Tolerance - Comparison With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 75, Issue 4, Pages 868-873

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-10-0927

Keywords

Coronary artery disease; Impaired glucose tolerance; Paclitaxel-eluting stent; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Sirolimus-eluting stent

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Experimental and clinical studies have shown that paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) attenuates the effect of diabetes on re-stenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention. Although impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is a pre-diabetic phase characterized as post-prandial hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, the efficacy of PES in these pre-diabetic patients remains unknown. The purpose of the present study was therefore to compare the efficacy of PES in IGT patients with that of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Methods and Results: A total of 370 IGT patients with coronary artery disease were examined (SES, n=229; PES, n=141). The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization) was compared between the 2 groups. The PES group had lower body mass index, total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and higher prevalence of previous myocardial infarction than the SES group. The incidence of repeat revascularization in the PES group was similar to that in the SES group (22% vs. 19%, P=0.71). The incidence of hard cardiac events such as all-cause death and non-fatal myocardial infarction were also similar between the 2 groups. Finally, there were no significant differences in MACE between the SES and PES groups (23% vs. 21%, P=0.76). Conclusions: In patients with IGT, the efficacy of PES was similar to that of SES, and any advantage of PES over SES was not observed in these pre-diabetic patients. (Circ J 2011; 75: 868-873)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available