Clinical impact of diabetes mellitus on 2-year clinical outcomes following PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents; Landmark analysis findings from patient registry: Pooled analysis of the Korean multicenter drug-eluting stent registry

Background Patients with diabetes mellitus are at an increased risk for adverse clinical events following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). However, the clinical impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is not well-known. The aim of the current analysis was to examine the clinical impact of DM on clinical outcomes and the time sequence of associated risks in patients treated with second-generation DES. Methods Using patient-level data from two stent-specific, all-comer, prospective DES registries, we evaluated 1,913 patients who underwent PCI with second-generation DES between Feb 2009 and Dec 2013. The primary outcomes assessed were two-year major cardiac adverse events (MACE), composite endpoints of death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization. We classified 0–1 year as the early period and 1–2 years as the late period. Landmark analyses were performed according to diabetes mellitus status. Results There were 1,913 patients with 2,614 lesions included in the pooled dataset. The median duration of clinical follow-up in the overall population was 2.0 years (interquartile range 1.9–2.1). Patients with DM had more cardiovascular risk factors than patients without DM. In multivariate analyses, the presence of DM and renal failure were strong predictors of MACE and target-vessel revascularization (TVR). After inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses, patients with DM had significantly increased rates of 2-year MACE (HR 2.07, 95% CI; 1.50–2.86; P <0.001). In landmark analyses, patients with DM had significantly higher rates of MACE in the early period (0–1 year) (HR 3.04, 95% CI; 1.97–4.68; P < 0.001) after IPTW adjustment, but these findings or trends were not observed in the late period (1–2 year) (HR 1.24, 95% CI; 0.74–2.07; P = 0.41). Conclusions In the second-generation DES era, the clinical impact of DM significantly increased the 2-year event rate of MACE, mainly caused by clinical events in the early period (0–1 year). Careful observation of patients with DM is advised in the early period following PCI with second-generation DES.

[1]  T. Akasaka,et al.  Second-generation versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with and without diabetes mellitus: pooled analysis from the RESET and NEXT trials , 2016, Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics.

[2]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  The universal definition of myocardial infarction , 2015, Oxford Medicine Online.

[3]  I. Seong,et al.  Everolimus-eluting Xience v/Promus versus zotarolimus-eluting resolute stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[4]  C. Terkelsen,et al.  Incidence of definite stent thrombosis or in‐stent restenosis after drug‐eluting stent implantation for treatment of coronary in‐stent restenosis: From Western Denmark heart registry , 2013, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[5]  I. Seong,et al.  Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus (ESSENCE-DIABETES): Results From the ESSENCE-DIABETES Trial , 2011, Circulation.

[6]  I. Seong,et al.  A randomized comparison of sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus: 4-year clinical outcomes of DES-DIABETES (drug-eluting stent in patients with DIABETES mellitus) trial. , 2011, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[7]  G. Stone,et al.  Outcomes in diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with everolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents: results from the SPIRIT IV clinical trial (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System). , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  Gregg W Stone,et al.  Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  P. Smits,et al.  Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial , 2010, The Lancet.

[10]  F. Castriota,et al.  Two-Year Clinical Outcomes With Drug-Eluting Stents for Diabetic Patients With De Novo Coronary Lesions: Results From a Real-World Multicenter Registry , 2008, Circulation.

[11]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  Long-term clinical outcomes with sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: five-year results of the RAVEL trial. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  Simon Wandel,et al.  Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis , 2007, The Lancet.

[13]  C. Yancy,et al.  Thrombosis in Coronary Drug-Eluting Stents: Report From the Meeting of the Circulatory System Medical Devices Advisory Panel of the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, December 7–8, 2006* , 2007, Circulation.

[14]  F. Fernández‐Avilés,et al.  Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Standard Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Diabetic Patients: The Diabetes and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent (DIABETES) Trial , 2005, Circulation.

[15]  W. O’Neill,et al.  Impact of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents on Outcome in Diabetic Patients: A SIRIUS (SIRolImUS-coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) Substudy , 2004, Circulation.

[16]  G. Stone,et al.  Short- and long-term results after multivessel stenting in diabetic patients. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  J. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology , 2000, Epidemiology.

[18]  M. Hadamitzky,et al.  Diabetes mellitus and the clinical and angiographic outcome after coronary stent placement. , 1998, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.