4.6 Article

Effect of thiazolidinediones on in-stent restenosis in patients after coronary stenting: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 202, 期 2, 页码 521-528

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2008.05.029

关键词

Thiazolidinediones; Coronary stenting; Coronary restenosis; Diabetes mellitus; Randomized controlled trials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recent experimental studies have demonstrated that thiazolidinediones (TZDs) therapy inhibits proliferation and migration of vascular smooth muscle cells, accelerates endothelium reparation and attenuates neointimal hyperplasia. It implies that TZDs therapy may have beneficial effects on in-stent restenosis (ISR). Several small-sample clinical trials have evaluated the effect of TZDs therapy on ISR, however, the results were inconsistent across trials. Methods and results: We performed a meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of TZDs therapy on in-stent restenosis in patients undergoing coronary stenting. Eight trials involving 366 patients were included in this study. TZDs therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of ISR in both diabetic (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59; P<0.0001) and non-diabetic patients (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05-0.45; P=0.0006). TZDs therapy was associated with a significant reduction in late lumen loss (WMD -0.54 mm, 95% CI -0.87 mm, -0.22 mm; P=0.001), percent diameter stenosis (WMD -15.7%, 95% CI -19.4%, -12.0%; P<0.00001), neointimal area/volume (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.13, -0.39; P<0.0001) and target lesion revascularization (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.57; P=0.0001). Conclusions: Our study suggests that TZDs therapy is an effective strategy in preventing ISR in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients undergoing coronary stenting. More studies, especially large multi-centre RCTs, are still warranted to further clarify the anti-restenotic effect of TZDs therapy. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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