4.5 Article

Reduction of neointimal hyperplasia after coronary stenting by pioglitazone in nondiabetic patients with metabolic syndrome

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 153, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.02.022

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background This study investigates whether pioglitazone reduces neointimal hyperplasia after coronary stenting in nondiabetic patients with metabolic syndrome (MS) using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Pioglitazone, a novel insulin-sensitizing thiazolidinedione, has been shown to reduce neointimal hyperplasia after coronary stenting in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the effect of pioglitazone on in-stent restenosis in nondiabetic patients with MS remains unknown. Methods and Results Twenty-eight nondiabetic patients with MS after bare-metal stent implantation were randomized to 6-month treatment with or without 30 mg/d of pioglitazone (pioglitazone group [PIO] of 14 patients with 16 lesions and control group [CONT] of 14 patients with 16 lesions). At baseline and at 6-month follow-up, assessment of insulin resistance and visceral fat accumulation, quantitative coronary angiographic analysis, and IVUS measurements were performed. Pioglitazone treatment improved insulin resistance and decreased visceral fat accumulation without significant changes in plasma glucose levels, glycosylated hemoglobin Alc levels, and lipid profiles. Intimal index (intimal area / stent area) and intimal area were reduced in PIO compared with CONT (13% +/- 7% vs 21% +/- 13%, P = .033; 1.28 +/- 0.76 mm(2) vs 1.90 +/- 1.16 mm(2), P = .084; respectively). Binary restenosis rate was 0% in PIO versus 31 % in CONT (P = .043). Conclusions This is the first randomized, prospective IVUS study demonstrating that pioglitazone reduces neointimal hyperplasia after coronary stenting in nondiabetic patients with MS. Our data suggest that pioglitazone treatment may represent a novel therapeutic tool to target in-stent restenosis in nondiabetic patients with MS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据