Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis

Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of three types of stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, and bare metal) in people with and without diabetes mellitus. Design Collaborative network meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), relevant websites, reference lists, conference abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and proceedings of advisory panels for the US Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers and trialists provided additional data. Review methods Network meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison method to combine direct within trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Overall mortality was the primary safety end point, target lesion revascularisation the effectiveness end point. Results 35 trials in 3852 people with diabetes and 10 947 people without diabetes contributed to the analyses. Inconsistency of the network was substantial for overall mortality in people with diabetes and seemed to be related to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (P value for interaction 0.02). Restricting the analysis to trials with a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more, inconsistency was reduced considerably and hazard ratios for overall mortality were near one for all comparisons in people with diabetes: sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.88 (95% credibility interval 0.55 to 1.30), paclitaxel eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.91 (0.60 to 1.38), and sirolimus eluting stents compared with paclitaxel eluting stents 0.95 (0.63 to 1.43). In people without diabetes, hazard ratios were unaffected by the restriction. Both drug eluting stents were associated with a decrease in revascularisation rates compared with bare metal stents in people both with and without diabetes. Conclusion In trials that specified a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more after stent implantation, drug eluting stents seemed safe and effective in people both with and without diabetes.

Diabetic patients treated for unprotected left main coronary artery disease with drug eluting stents: a 3-year clinical outcome study. The diabetes and drug eluting stent for LeFT main registry (D-DELFT)

AIMS: Diabetes mellitus (DM) plays an important role in the development of coronary artery disease. Although previous studies have associated drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in diabetic patients with favourable clinical and angiographic outcomes, the very long-term efficacy of these devices in diabetic patients undergoing PCI for significant unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease has not been established yet. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive diabetic patients (n=100), who underwent elective PCI with DES for de novo lesions in an ULMCA between April 2002 and April 2004 in seven tertiary health care centres, were identified retrospectively and analysed. Consecutive non-diabetic patients (n=193), who underwent elective DES implantation for unprotected ULMCA disease, were selected as a control group. All patients were followed for at least 36 months. At 3-years follow-up, freedom from cardiac death ; myocardial infarction (CDMI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) did not differ significantly between groups. The adjusted freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACE, defined as the occurrence of CD, MI or TVR) was 63.4% in the DM group and 77.6% in the controls (p<0.001). When divided into IDDM and NIDDM sub-groups, insulin-dependent DM (IDDM) but not non IDDM (NIDDM) patients had significantly lower freedom from CDMI, TLR, TVR and MACE compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that major improvements in DES technology and pharmacotherapy are still required to improve clinical outcome and that the decision to perform percutaneous revascularisation in this subset of patients should be taken cautiously and on a case by case basis.

[Diabetes update: preventing type 2 diabetes. Individualized stepwise therapy (oral antidiabetic agents). Multifactorial intervention]

Preclinical disorders of glucose metabolism should be systematically included in the high-risk group for diabetes mellitus and affected individuals provided with preventive measures. Their underlying insulin resistance is determined with the help of a checklist and a method called homeostasis model assessment (HOMA). Patients with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) must change their lifestyles. If this does not lead to a response or the patient is unable to modify behavior, medication is required. In the case of manifest type 2 diabetes mellitus, a graded schedule is used for differential management, which should be based on nutritional and exercise therapy. Oral medication with metformin is probably the drug of choice in both obese and non-obese patients. It is crucial not to delay raising the level of treatment until HbA1c has fallen to within an unsatisfactory range (wait-and-see strategy). Rather, the level should be intensified when persistent exacerbation starts to become apparent (proactive therapy). In diabetes mellitus, the same guidelines for secondary prevention apply to the associated cardiovascular risk factors as with coronary heart disease. An intensified and, especially, early treatment is to be preferred over a conservative, wait-and-see approach, in this case as well.