RESUMEN

Introducción y objetivos Hasta un 25% de los pacientes sometidos a intervencionismo coronario percutáneo presentan alguna limitación para la utilización de los stents farmacoactivos. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar si el stent bioactivo de titanio y óxido nítrico podía ser una buena alternativa al stent de everolimus para pacientes diabéticos.MétodosSe aleatorizó a 173 pacientes diabéticos con lesiones de riesgo de reestenosis intermedio (criterios de exclusión: diámetro < 2,5 mm o longitud > 28 mm en vasos < 3 mm, oclusión crónica): 83 pacientes en el grupo con titanio y 90 en el grupo con everolimus.ResultadosLas variables basales estaban bien equilibradas, el 28,3% eran insulinodependientes. Al año, las incidencias de eventos adversos cardiacos mayores (muerte, infarto de miocardio no fatal, ictus o nueva revascularización del vaso tratado) eran significativamente más frecuente en el grupo con titanio que en el grupo con everolimus (total, el 14,5 frente al 4,4%; p = 0,02; subgrupo no insulinodependiente, el 9,7 frente al 3,2%; p = 0,14; insulinodependiente, el 28,6 frente al 7,1%; p = 0,04) y de muerte, infarto de miocardio no fatal, ictus o cualquier revascularización, del 16,9% en el grupo con titanio y el 7,8% en el grupo con everolimus (p = 0,06). La revascularización de la lesión diana se produjo en el 8,4 frente al 3,3% (p = 0,15), y la del vaso tratado, el 13,3 frente al 3,3% (p = 0,01). El seguimiento angiográfico a 9 meses mostró una pérdida luminal tardía significativamente menor en el grupo con everolimus (en el segmento, 0,52 ± 0,58 frente a -0,05 ± 0,32 mm; en el stent, 0,76 ± 0,54 frente a 0,13 ± 0,31 mm; p < 0,0001). ConclusionesEl stent de everolimus fue superior al titanio en pacientes diabéticos incluso con lesiones de riesgo de eventos clínicos y angiográficos intermedio (AU)

Introduction and objectives Up to 25% of patients who undergo a percutaneous coronary intervention show some limitation in the use of drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to evaluate if titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents could be a good alternative to everolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients.MethodsA total of 173 diabetic patients with lesions at moderate risk of restenosis (exclusion criteria: diameter < 2.5 mm or length > 28 mm in vessels < 3 mm, chronic occlusion) were randomized to a titanium group (83 patients) or an everolimus group (90 patients).ResultsBaseline characteristics were well balanced; 28.3% of patients were insulin dependent. At 1 year, the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat target vessel revascularization) was significantly higher in the titanium group than in the everolimus group (total, 14.5% vs 4.4%; P = .02; noninsulin-dependent subgroup, 9.7% vs 3.2%; P = .14; insulin-dependent subgroup, 28.6% vs 7.1%; P = .04). The incidence of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization was 16.9% in the titanium group and 7.8% in the everolimus group (P = .06). Target lesion and vessel revascularizations occurred in 8.4% compared with 3.3% (P = .15) and in 13.3% compared with 3.3% (P = .01) in the titanium and everolimus groups, respectively. Angiographic follow-up at 9 months showed significantly less late lumen loss in the everolimus group (in-segment, 0.52 [standard deviation, 0.58) mm vs -0.05 [0.32] mm; in-stent, 0.76 [0.54] mm vs 0.13 [0.31] mm; P < .0001).ConclusionsThe everolimus-eluting stent is superior to the titanium stent for clinical and angiographic end points in diabetic patients with lesions at moderate risk of restenosis (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Up to 25% of patients who undergo a percutaneous coronary intervention show some limitation in the use of drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to evaluate if titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents could be a good alternative to everolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients. METHODS: A total of 173 diabetic patients with lesions at moderate risk of restenosis (exclusion criteria: diameter < 2.5 mm or length > 28 mm in vessels < 3mm, chronic occlusion) were randomized to a titanium group (83 patients) or an everolimus group (90 patients). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced; 28.3% of patients were insulin dependent. At 1 year, the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat target vessel revascularization) was significantly higher in the titanium group than in the everolimus group (total, 14.5% vs 4.4%; P = .02; noninsulin-dependent subgroup, 9.7% vs 3.2%; P = .14; insulin-dependent subgroup, 28.6% vs 7.1%; P = .04). The incidence of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization was 16.9% in the titanium group and 7.8% in the everolimus group (P = .06). Target lesion and vessel revascularizations occurred in 8.4% compared with 3.3% (P = .15) and in 13.3% compared with 3.3% (P = .01) in the titanium and everolimus groups, respectively. Angiographic follow-up at 9 months showed significantly less late lumen loss in the everolimus group (in-segment, 0.52 [standard deviation, 0.58) mm vs -0.05 [0.32] mm; in-stent, 0.76 [0.54] mm vs 0.13 [0.31] mm; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The everolimus-eluting stent is superior to the titanium stent for clinical and angiographic end points in diabetic patients with lesions at moderate risk of restenosis.

Asunto(s)