Publish in this journal
Journal Information
Vol. 62. Issue 4.
Pages 354-364 (April 2009)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 62. Issue 4.
Pages 354-364 (April 2009)
Full text access
Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Diabetic Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Data From Seven Randomized Trials
Stents liberadores de fármacos frente a stents convencionales en pacientes diabéticos con infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST: un análisis combinado de los datos de pacientes individuales de 7 ensayos aleatorizados
Visits
...
Raisuke Iijimaa, Robert A Byrnea, Alban Dibraa, Gjin Ndrepepaa, Christian Spauldingb, Gerrit J Laarmanc, Maurizio Menichellid, Marco Valgimiglie, Emilio Di Lorenzof, Christoph Kaiserg, Ilkka Tieralah, Julinda Mehillia, Maarten J Suttorpi, Roberto Violinid, Albert Schömiga, Adnan Kastratia
a Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technische Universit??t, Munich, Germany
b Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Cochin Hospital, Paris 5 Medical School René Descartes University and INSERM, Paris, France
c Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
d Ospedale San Camillo, Roma, Italy
e Universit?? di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
f A.O.R.N. S. G. Moscati, Avellino, Italy
g University of Basel, Basilea, Switzerland
h Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
i St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (7)
Show moreShow less
Introduction and objectives. The performance of drug-eluting stents (DES) in high-risk patients with diabetes and acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have undergone primary angioplasty has not been previously studied. The objestive was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DESs in diabetic patients with STEMI. Methods. We performed a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 7 randomized trials that compared DES (ie, sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) with bare-metal stent (BMS) in patients with STEMI. The analysis involved 389 patients with diabetes mellitus from a total of 2476 patients. The outcomes of interest were target-lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, death, and the composite endpoint of death or recurrent myocardial infarction during a follow-up of 12-24 months. Results. Overall, 206 diabetic patients received a DES and 183, a BMS. The risk of target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower in patients treated with a DES compared to those treated with a BMS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.88; P=.02). There was no significant difference in the risk of stent thrombosis between those treated with a DES or a BMS (HR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.09-1.13; P=.08). Similarly, the risk of the combined endpoint of death or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between patients treated with a DES or a BMS (HR=0.64; 95% CI, 0.36-1.13; P=.12). Conclusions. Compared with BMSs, DES use improved clinical outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI: the need for reintervention was reduced, with no increase in mortality or myocardial infarction. was significantly lower in patients treated with a DES compared to those treated with a BMS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.88; P=.02). There was no significant difference in the risk of stent thrombosis between those treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09-1.13; P=.08). Similarly, the risk of the combined endpoint of death or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between patients treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36-1.13; P=.12). Conclusions. Compared with BMSs, DES use improved clinical outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI: the need for reintervention was reduced, with no increase in mortality or myocardial infarction.
Keywords:
Acute myocardial infarction
Diabetes mellitus
Stents
Drug-eluting stents
Restenosis
Stent thrombosis
Introducción y objetivos. Los resultados obtenidos con los stents liberadores de fármacos (SLF) en el grupo de pacientes de alto riesgo formado por los pacientes diabéticos con infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST (IAMCEST) tratados con angioplastia primaria no se han estudiado con anterioridad. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar la eficacia y la seguridad de los SLF en pacientes diabéticos con IAMCEST. Métodos. Llevamos a cabo un análisis combinado de los datos de pacientes individuales de 7 ensayos aleatorizados en los que se comparó el empleo de stents liberadores de sirolimus o de paclitaxel (SLF) con el de stents convencionales (SC) en el contexto de un IAMCEST. Se incluyó en este análisis a 389 pacientes con diabetes mellitus de un grupo total de 2.476. Los objetivos del estudio fueron la revascularización de la lesión diana, la trombosis del stent, la muerte y la variable combinada de muerte o infarto de miocardio recurrente durante un periodo de seguimiento de 12-24 meses. Resultados. Hubo 206 pacientes diabéticos tratados con SLF y 183 tratados con SC. El riesgo de que se practicara una revascularización de la lesión diana fue significativamente inferior en los pacientes tratados con SLF en comparación con los pacientes tratados con SC (razón de riesgos [HR] = 0,44; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%, 0,23-0,88; p = 0,02). El riesgo de trombosis del stent no presentó diferencias significativas entre los pacientes tratados con SLF y los tratados con SC (HR = 0,33; IC del 95%, 0,09-1,13; p = 0,08). De forma análoga, el riesgo de la variable de valoración combinada formada por la muerte y el infarto de miocardio no presentó diferencias significativas entre los pacientes tratados con SLF y los tratados con SC (HR = 0,64; IC del 95%, 0,36-1,13; p = 0,12). Conclusiones. En comparación con los SC, los SLF mejoran los resultados clínicos en los pacientes diabéticos a los que se practica una angioplastia primaria por un IAMCEST, al reducir la necesidad de reintervención sin incrementar la tasa de mortalidad o infarto de miocardio.
Palabras clave:
Infarto agudo de miocardio
Diabetes mellitus
Stents
Stents farmacoactivos
Reestenosis
Trombosis del stent
Full Text

INTRODUCTION

Primary coronary angioplasty has been established as the treatment of choice for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).1,2 Implantation of bare metal stents (BMS) further reduces the incidence of major adverse cardiac events mainly by decreasing the need for reintervention.3,4 Nevertheless, many STEMI patients treated with primary bare-metal stenting still require repeat revascularization procedures.5-7 Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown effective in reducing restenosis and need for reintervention in several patient subsets.8,9 Recently, several randomized trials and a meta-analysis of these trials which compared DESs (sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents) with BMS among STEMI patients demonstrated that DESs improve clinical outcome by reducing the risk of reintervention.10-16 On the other hand, in spite of some concerns about an increased risk of stent thrombosis with these devices in STEMI patients, they showed a good safety profile.17,18

Diabetes mellitus portends a higher risk for adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.19 Diabetic patients experience a higher incidence of thrombotic events and more frequently require reintervention procedures.19 Studies which have excluded patients with STEMI have shown that DESs reduce the risk of repeat revascularization,20 while there has been concern about the safety of these devices in diabetic patients.21,22 However, the efficacy and safety of DESs in diabetic patients with STEMI treated with primary stenting has not been studied before. The numbers of STEMI patients with diabetes mellitus in the individual studies which were previously mentioned were too small to allow meaningful analysis.10-16 Therefore, we performed a pooled analysis based on individual data of diabetic patients enrolled in 7 randomized trials that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of DESs versus BMS in patients with STEMI.

METHODS

We searched for randomized studies comparing DESs (sirolimus- or paclitaxcel-eluting stents) with BMS in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI. They were included in this pooled analysis if results regarding diabetes mellitus status and a mean follow-up period of at least 12 months were reported or made available by the trial investigators.

To identify the studies of interest we searched PubMed database, U.S. National Institute of Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the proceedings of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and European Society of Cardiology. Internet-based sources of information on the results of clinical trials in cardiology (www.cardiosource.com/clinicaltrials, www.theheart.org, www.clinicaltrialresults.com, and www.tctmd.com) were also searched. We also identified relevant reviews and editorials from major medical journals published within the last year and assessed for possible information on trials of interest. The last search was performed in November 2007. A total of 7 trials were available for this pooled analysis.10-16

The primary efficacy end point of pooled analysis was the need for reintervention (target lesion revascularisation). The primary safety end point of this pooled analysis was stent thrombosis. According to the protocols used in the original clinical trials, stent thrombosis was defined as angiographic evidence of thrombus in the presence of ischemic signs. Secondary end points were death and the composite of death or and recurrent myocardial infarction. The adjudication of events in each trial was performed by the same event committee over the entire follow-up period. Survival was calculated from the date of randomization to the date of death. Data for surviving patients were censored on the date of last follow-up. An electronic form containing the data fields to be completed for individual patients was sent to all principal investigators of the trials

The data requested for each enrolled patient included the date of randomization, allocated treatment, diabetes status, event status (including death, recurrent myocardial infarction, coronary reintervention [percutaneous or surgical], stent thrombosis, and their respective dates of occurrence) and date of last follow-up. All data were thoroughly checked for consistency (logical checking and checking against the original publications). Any queries were resolved and the final database entries verified by the responsible trial investigator.

Statistical Analysis

We used the Mantel-Cox method stratified by trial to perform survival analysis. Hazard ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated by means of the log-rank test. Trials in which the event of interest was not observed in any of the treatment groups were not included in the analysis of that event. For trials in which only one of the treatment groups had no events of interest, the treatment effect estimate and its standard error were approximated from 2x2 contingency tables after adding 0.5 to each cell.23 We used the Cochran test to assess heterogeneity across trials. Also, we calculated the I2 statistic to measure the consistency between trials with values of 25%, 50%, and 75% representing low, moderate, and high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively.24 Hazard ratios from individual trials were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird method for random effects.25 Results were considered statistically significant at 2-sided P<.05. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Stata software, version 9.2 (Stata Corp, College Station, Tex). Survival curves are presented as simple, non-stratified Kaplan-Meier curves across all trials and constructed with the use of S-Plus software version 4.5. (Insightful Corporation, Seattle, WA).

RESULTS

Seven randomized trials including 2476 patients with STEMI treated with DESs or BMS were selected for this analysis. Of these, a total of 389 diabetic patients (15.7%) were identified and analyzed. The main characteristics and inclusion criteria of these trials are summarised in Tables 1 and 2. There were 206 diabetic patients allocated to the DESs group (127 patients with sirolimus-eluting stent and 79 patients with paclitaxel-eluting stent) and 183 diabetic patients to BMS group. Table 3 shows the definition of diabetes in each of trials. More specifically, sirolimus-eluting stent was tested in the SESAMI (Randomized Trial of Sirolimus Stent vs Bare Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction trial) and the STRATEGY (Single High Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus Eluting Stent vs Abciximab and Bare Metal Stent in Myocardial Infarction trial) and the TYPHOON (Trial to Assess the Use of the Cypher Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated with Balloon Angiography).12,13,15 Paclitaxel-eluting stent was tested in the HAAMUSTENT (Helsinki area acute myocardial infarction-treatment re-evaluation—Should the patient get a drug-eluting or a normal stent trial) and PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent vs Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation trial).10,11 Either sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents were tested in the BASKET-AMI (Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts in Acute Myocardial Infarction trial) and the trial of Di Lorenzo et al.14,16 The recommended length of postprocedural thienopyridine therapy was 3,12 6,11,13,14,16 or 12 months.10,15 The mean length of follow-up ranged from 12 to 24.2 months. All trials were of open-label design and all but 2 trials11,16 had protocol-mandated follow-up angiography. No significant interaction was observed between diabetes and treatment effect achieved with DES in the entire population regarding reintervention (P=.60), stent thrombosis (P=.24), death (P=.30), and composite of death or recurrent myocardial infarction (P=.64).

Figure 1A shows the absolute numbers of patients who experienced the primary efficacy end point of reintervention in each trial by treatment group, with the hazard ratio for each trial. Overall, the use of DES was associated with a hazard ratio for reintervention of 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.88; P=.02) compared with the use of BMS. There was no heterogeneity across trials (I2 =0%) and no significant interaction (P=.52) between treatment effect and type of DES (sirolimus-eluting stent or paclitaxel-eluting stent) used. Figure 1B shows 1-year probability curves for reintervention in the 2 treatment arms. A continuous separation of the curves is readily visible. The probability of reintervention was 6.8% in the DES group and 13.7% in the BMS group.

Figure 1. A: absolute numbers of patients requiring reintervention and hazard ratios for this endpoint with drug-eluting stent versus. bare-metal stents for individual trials and the pooled population. Hazard ratios are shown on a logarithmic scale. The size of the square is proportional to the weight of the individual studies, measured as the inverse of the estimated variance of the log hazard ratio. B: Kaplan-Meier curves of reintervention in each of the stent groups for the pooled population. BMS indicates bare-metal stent; DES, drug-eluting stent.

Figure 2A shows the number of patients who suffered the primary safety end point of stent thrombosis (as defined in the individual trials). The hazard ratio for stent thrombosis was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.09-1.13; P=.08). There was no heterogeneity across trials (I2=0%) and no significant interaction (P=.98) between treatment effect and type of DES used (sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stent). Figure 2B shows 1-year curves of stent thrombosis probability for the 2 treatment groups. The probability of stent thrombosis was 1.5% in the DES group and 4.4% in the BMS group.

Figure 2. A: absolute numbers of patients with stent thrombosis and hazard ratios for stent thrombosis associated with drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stents for individual trials and the pooled population. Hazard ratios are shown on a logarithmic scale. The size of the square is proportional to the weight of the individual studies, measured as the inverse of the estimated variance of the log hazard ratio. B: Kaplan-Meier curves of stent thrombosis in each of the stent groups for the pooled population. BMS indicates bare-metal stent; DES, drug-eluting stent.

Figure 3A shows the absolute numbers of deaths in each trial according to treatment group, with the hazard ratio for each trial. There was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity across the 7 trials. In total, there were 15 death in patients with DES and 18 deaths in patients with BMS. There was no heterogeneity across trials (I2=0%) and no significant interaction (P=.69) between treatment effect and type of DES (sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stent) used. Overall, the use of DES was associated with a hazard ratio for death of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.26-1.16, P=.12), as compared with that of BMS. Figure 3B shows 1-year mortality curves for the 2 treatment groups. The probability of death was 6.3% in the DES group and 8.7% in the BMS stent group. Four patients died after 1 year: 2 in the DES group and 2 in the BMS group.

Figure 3. A: absolute numbers of patients experiencing death and hazard ratios for death associated with drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stents for individual trials and the pooled population. Hazard ratios are shown on a logarithmic scale. The size of the square is proportional to the weight of the individual studies, measured as the inverse of the estimated variance of the log hazard ratio. B: Kaplan-Meier curves of mortality in each of the stent groups for the pooled population. BMS indicates bare-metal stent; DES, drug-eluting stent.

Figure 4A shows the absolute numbers of patients who died or had a recurrent myocardial infarction in each trial according to treatment group, with the hazard ratio for each trial. There was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity across trials. Overall, use of DES was associated with a hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.36-1.13; P=.12), as compared with use of BMS. Figure 4B shows 1-year event curves for the 2 treatment groups. The probability of death or myocardial infarction was 12.6% in the DES group and 13.1% in the BMS group.

Figure 4. A: absolute numbers of patients experiencing death or recurrent myocardial infarction and hazard ratios for this endpoint with drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stents for individual trials and the pooled population. Hazard ratios are shown on a logarithmic scale. The size of the square is proportional to the weight of the individual studies, measured as the inverse of the estimated variance of the log hazard ratio. B: Kaplan-Meier curves of death or recurrent myocardial infarction in each of the stent groups for the pooled population. BMS indicates bare-metal stent; DES, drug-eluting stent.

DISCUSSION

In this study we performed a pooled analysis of patient-level data from 7 randomized trials comparing sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents with BMS in diabetic patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI. The findings of this study show that use of DES dramatically reduces the risk of repeat revascularization without any increase in the risk of thrombotic related events as compared with the use of BMS.

Although it has been established that DES are generally highly effective in reducing restenosis and need of reinterventions in various patient and lesion subsets, until recently there has been only limited evidence on the use of DES in patients with acute myocardial infarction. An increased risk of acute and sub-acute stent thrombosis has constituted a major concern regarding the use of DES in this group of patients.26 This increased risk has been explained by enhanced platelet reactivity in acute myocardial infarction, presence of a pronounced inflammatory and thrombogenic environment of the exposed necrotic core to flowing blood, prothrombogenic effects of the non-erodible polymer and drugs loaded onto the stent platform.26 The risk of stent thrombosis with DES could be even higher and the effectiveness of these devices could be lower in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing primary stenting for STEMI. Evidence shows the presence of diabetes mellitus is associated with a worse outcome among patients with acute myocardial infarction; diabetic patients have a higher rate of mortality and postintervention coronary restenosis than nondiabetic patients.19 This poor prognosis of diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction has been linked to various factors including hypercoagulability, endothelial and platelet dysfunction, widespread atherosclerosis, and comorbidities.19 Considering that the prevalence of diabetes mellitus among patients with acute myocardial infarction has increased during the last decade and the prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus has remained worse despite advances in the management of myocardial infarction, the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of DES in diabetic patients with STEMI constitutes an issue of great interest.27 Nevertheless, there have been no dedicated studies on diabetic patients treated with DES for STEMI. On the other hand, previous reports on the use of DES in diabetic patients without STEMI have shown the superiority of DES over BMS in reducing repeat revascularization rates but have also raised some concerns regarding a higher risk of thrombosis-related events with DES.20,21

Within the last 2 years the results of several randomized studies of DES versus BMS in patients undergoing primary stenting for STEMI have been reported.10-16 These studies showed the safety and efficacy of using DES in STEMI patients. However, there were no separate analyses for diabetic patients in these studies. The numbers of patients with diabetes mellitus in the individual studies were too small, varying from 2410 to 11613 patients thus preventing the performance of any meaningful subset analysis. In a pooled analysis of 389 patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing primary stenting for STEMI in 7 randomized trials we found that use of DES was associated with a 56% reduction in the hazards of repeat reintervention. This figure is comparable to the 62% reduction in the hazards of reintervention reported recently from a meta-analysis including all patients of randomized trials comparing DES with BMS in STEMI.17 Furthermore, we did not find evidence for a higher rate of stent thrombosis, death or the composite endpoint of death or myocardial infarction. The 1-year probability of stent thrombosis was 4.4% in the BMS group. Available information on the incidence of this complication in diabetic patients with STEMI treated with BMS is very limited. It has been as high as 18% in a very small cohort of diabetics in the study of Silva et al.28 In the Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (CADILLAC) trial, the incidence of stent thrombosis was not reported for diabetic patients; however, the patients had a 1-year rate of 6.1% for mortality and 3.4% for recurrent infarction.29 It has been suggested that DES increase the risk of late stent thrombosis as compared with BMS not only in a recent meta-analysis,30 but also in a recent registry of STEMI.31 Thus it is possible that our mean follow-up of more than 15 months has limited our capacity to detect the true incidence of very late stent thrombosis in our patient population. In addition, less frequent events are associated with more extreme and unstable estimators. On the other hand, a recent pooled analysis showed that during a follow-up of 4 years the incidence of stent thrombosis is not significantly different between patients treated with DES and those treated with BMS in randomized clinical trials.32 These findings support the safety of using DES in diabetic patients during primary stenting for STEMI. It should be noted, however, that the rare occurrence of these events may prevent this analysis from detecting possible differences between DES and BMS. Despite the larger number of patients available for this pooled analysis as compared with the individual trials, the results of this analysis should be interpreted with caution. Not only the number of diabetic patients is relatively limited but this study also represents a post hoc subset analysis. In the setting of a subset analysis, randomization could have been ineffective. Adequately powered studies with longer follow-up are required to provide definitive answers to the issues of efficacy and safety of DES implantation in diabetic patients with STEMI. Furthermore, it should be noted that STEMI is still an off-label indication for DES. The results of this meta-analysis apply to the type of patients enrolled in the trials which were included in this meta-analysis. However, recent evidence from patients outside the setting of clinical trials suggests similar benefit with drug-eluting stents in the setting of acute myocardial infarction.33,34

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, use of DES in diabetic patients undergoing primary stenting for STEMI reduces the need for repeat intervention without increasing the rate of thrombosis-related events as compared to BMS.

ABBREVIATIONS
BMS: bare-metal stent
DES: drug-eluting stents
STEMI: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Dr Kastrati reports having received lecture fees from Bristol-Meyers, Cordis, Glaxo, Lilly, Medtronic, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis. Drs Spaulding and Varenne report having received lecture fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, and Lilly. Dr Laarman reports having served on the advisory board of Boston Scientific and received lecture fees from Cordis and Medtronic. Dr Valgimigli reports having received honoraria for lectures, consultancy, and research grants from Merck. Dr Tierala reports having received unrestricted research grants via the Helsinki University Hospital Research Institute from Boston Scientific, Lilly, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis as well as lecture fees from Glaxo-Smith-Kline, MSD, Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, and Bristol-Myers-Squibb. Dr Violini reports having received lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic. Dr Schömig reports receiving unrestricted grant support for the Department of Cardiology chairs from Amersham/General Electric, Bayerische Forschungsstiftung, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Cordis, Cryocath, Guidant, Medtronic, Nycomed, and Schering.

SEE ARTICLE ON PAGES 343-6

Financial support for this study was provided by Deutsches Herzzentrum, Munich.


Correspondence: Dr Raisuke Iijima, Deutsches Herzzentrum,
Lazarettstr. 36, 80636 Munich, Germany
E-mail: raisuke@live.jp

Received May 18, 2008
Accepted for publication October 24, 2008

Bibliography
[1]
Boersma E..
Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients.
Eur Heart J, 27 (2006), pp. 779-88
[2]
Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL..
Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials.
[3]
Nordmann AJ, Bucher H, Hengstler P, Harr T, Young J..
Primary stenting versus primary balloon angioplasty for treating acute myocardial infarction.
, CD005313 (Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005),
[4]
Zhu MM, Feit A, Chadow H, Alam M, Kwan T, Clark LT..
Primary stent implantation compared with primary balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Am J Cardiol, 88 (2001), pp. 297-301
[5]
Suryapranata H, van''t Hof AW, Hoorntje JC, de Boer MJ, Zijlstra F..
Randomized comparison of coronary stenting with balloon angioplasty in selected patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Circulation, 97 (1998), pp. 2502-5
[6]
Stone GW, Grines CL, Cox DA, Garcia E, Tcheng JE, Griffin JJ, et al..
Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction.
N Engl J Med, 346 (2002), pp. 957-66
[7]
Maillard L, Hamon M, Khalife K, Steg PG, Beygui F, Guermonprez JL, et al..
A comparison of systematic stenting and conventional balloon angioplasty during primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. STENTIM-2 Investigators.
J Am Coll Cardiol, 35 (2000), pp. 1729-36
[8]
Dibra A, Kastrati A, Alfonso F, Seyfarth M, Perez-Vizcayno MJ, Mehilli J, et al..
Effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients with bare-metal in-stent restenosis: meta-analysis of randomized trials.
J Am Coll Cardiol, 49 (2007), pp. 616-23
[9]
Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Pache J, Kaiser C, Valgimigli M, Kelbaek H, et al..
Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents.
N Engl J Med, 356 (2007), pp. 1030-9
[10]
Helsinki Area Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment Re-Evaluation ?? Should the Patients Get a Drug-Eluting or Normal Stent (HAAMU-STENT) trial [cited March 5, 2007]..
Available from: http.
[11]
Laarman GJ, Suttorp MJ, Dirksen MT, van Heerebeek L, Kiemeneij F, Slagboom T, et al..
Paclitaxel-eluting versus uncoated stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
N Engl J Med, 355 (2006), pp. 1105-13
[12]
Valgimigli M, Percoco G, Malagutti P, Campo G, Ferrari F, Barbieri D, et al..
Tirofiban and sirolimus-eluting stent vs abciximab and bare-metal stent for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized trial.
JAMA, 293 (2005), pp. 2109-17
[13]
Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, Beatt K, Bramucci E, Carrie D, et al..
Sirolimus-eluting versus uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction.
N Engl J Med, 355 (2006), pp. 1093-104
[14]
Di Lorenzo E, Varricchio A, Lanzillo T, Sauro R, Cianciulli G, Manganelli F, et al..
Paclitaxel and sirolimus stent implantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Circulation, 112 (2005), pp. U538
[15]
Menichelli M, Parma A, Pucci E, Fiorilli R, de Felice F, Nazzaro M, et al..
Randomized trial of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SESAMI).
J Am Coll Cardiol, 49 (2007), pp. 1924-30
[16]
Pittl U, Kaiser C, HP..
B-LR, Hunziker P, Linka A, Osswald S, et al. Safety and efficacy of drug eluting stents versus bare metal stents in primary angioplasty of patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction - a prospective randomized study.
Eur Heart J, 27 (2006), pp. 650,
[17]
Kastrati A, Dibra A, Spaulding C, Laarman GJ, Menichelli M, Valgimigli M, et al..
Meta-analysis of randomized trials on drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Eur Heart J, 28 (2007), pp. 2706-13
[18]
Pasceri V, Patti G, Speciale G, Pristipino C, Richichi G, Di Sciascio G..
Meta-analysis of clinical trials on use of drug-eluting stents for treatment of acute myocardial infarction.
Am Heart J, 153 (2007), pp. 749-54
[19]
Klein L, Gheorghiade M..
Management of the patient with diabetes mellitus and myocardial infarction: clinical trials update.
Am J Med, 116 Suppl 5A (2004), pp. S47-63
[20]
Sabaté M, Jiménez-Quevedo P, Angiolillo DJ, Gómez-Hospital JA, Alfonso F, Hernández-Antolín R, 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.
Circulation, 112 (2005), pp. 2175-83
[21]
Spaulding C, Daemen J, Boersma E, Cutlip DE, Serruys PW..
A pooled analysis of data comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents.
N Engl J Med, 356 (2007), pp. 989-97
[22]
Jiménez-Quevedo P, Sabaté M, Angiolillo DJ, Alfonso F, Hernández-Antolín R, SanMartín M, et al..
Long-term clinical benefit of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients with de novo coronary stenoses: long-term results of the DIABETES trial.
Eur Heart J, 28 (2007), pp. 1946-52
[23]
Sterne JA, Bradburn M, Egger M..
Meta-analysis in StataTM. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D, editors.
Systematic reviews in health care, 2001. p. 357 (London: Blackwell BMJ Books),
[24]
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG..
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.
[25]
DerSimonian R, Laird N..
Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
Control Clin Trials, 7 (1986), pp. 177-88
[26]
Luscher TF, Steffel J, Eberli FR, Joner M, Nakazawa G, Tanner FC, et al..
Drug-eluting stent and coronary thrombosis: biological mechanisms and clinical implications.
Circulation, 115 (2007), pp. 1051-8
[27]
Cubbon RM, Wheatcroft SB, Grant PJ, Gale CP, Barth JH, Sapsford RJ, et al..
Temporal trends in mortality of patients with diabetes mellitus suffering acute myocardial infarction: a comparison of over 3000 patients between 1995 and 2003.
Eur Heart J, 28 (2007), pp. 540-5
[28]
Silva JA, Ramee SR, White CJ, Collins TJ, Jenkins JS, Nunez E, et al..
Primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: influence of diabetes mellitus in angiographic results and clinical outcome.
Am Heart J, 138 (1999), pp. 446-55
[29]
Stuckey TD, Stone GW, Cox DA, Tcheng JE, Garcia E, Carroll J, et al..
Impact of stenting and abciximab in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction (the CADILLAC trial).
Am J Cardiol, 95 (2005), pp. 1-7
[30]
Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Helton TJ, Borek PP, Mood GR, Bhatt DL..
Late thrombosis of drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Am J Med, 119 (2006), pp. 1056-61
[31]
Kindermann M, Adam O, Werner N, Bohm M..
Clinical Trial Updates and Hotline Sessions presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2007: (FINESSE, CARESS, OASIS 5, PRAGUE-8, OPTIMIST, GRACE, STEEPLE, SCAAR, STRATEGY, DANAMI-2, ExTRACT-TIMI-25, ISAR-REACT 2, ACUITY, ALOFT, 3CPO, PROSPECT, EVEREST, COACH, BENEFiT, MERLIN-TIMI 36, SEARCH-MI, ADVANCE, WENBIT, EUROASPIRE I-III, ARISE, getABI, RIO).
Clin Res Cardiol, 96 (2007), pp. 767-86
[32]
Mauri L, Hsieh WH, Massaro JM, Ho KK, D''Agostino R, Cutlip DE..
Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents.
N Engl J Med, 356 (2007), pp. 1020-9
[33]
Planas-del Viejo AM, Pomar-Domingo F, Vilar-Herrero JV, Jacas-Osborn V, Nadal-Barangé M, Pérez-Fernández E..
Resultados clínicos y angiográficos tardíos de stents liberadores de fármacos en pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del ST.
Rev Esp Cardiol, 61 (2008), pp. 360-8
[34]
Flores Ríos X, Marzoa Rivas R, Abugattás de Torres JP, Piñón Esteban P, Aldama López G, Salgado Fernández J, et al..
Pronóstico a largo plazo del uso no aprobado de stents liberadores de paclitaxel.
Rev Esp Cardiol, 61 (2008), pp. 695-704
Idiomas
Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?