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. INTRODUCTIONPeople with diabetes experience a more generalised form of atherosclerosis than people without diabetes. They are at an increased risk for coronary heart disease and have more restenoses after the implantation of coronary stents. On average sirolimus eluting stents and paclitaxel eluting stents are associated with a noticeable reduction in target lesion revascularisation compared with bare metal stents, whereas the rates of overall mortality and cardiac mortality associated with the three stents are similar.1 Differences in the process and dynamics of restenosis along with variations in metabolic profiles may, however, alter safety or effectiveness profiles of the different stent types, particularly in people with diabetes.Randomised trials have reported a reduced revascularisation rate with both sirolimus eluting stents and paclitaxel eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in people with diabetes, 2...

OBJECTIVEDiabetes has been shown to be associated with worse survival and repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) after primary angioplasty. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of diabetes on long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary angioplasty treated with bare metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSOur population is represented by 6,298 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary angioplasty included in the DESERT database from 11 randomized trials comparing DES with BMS.RESULTSDiabetes was observed in 972 patients (15.4%) who were older (P < 0.001), more likely to be female (P < 0.001), with higher prevalence of hypertension (P < 0.001), hypercholesterolemia (P < 0.001), and longer ischemia time (P < 0.001), and without any difference in angiographic and procedural characteristics. At long-term follow-up (1,201 ± 441 days), diabetes was associated with higher rates of death (19.1% vs. 7.4%; P < 0.0001), reinfarction (10.4% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.001), stent thrombosis (7.6% vs. 4.8%; P = 0.002) with similar temporal distribution—acute, subacute, late, and very late—between diabetic and control patients, and TVR (18.6% vs. 15.1%; P = 0.006). These results were confirmed in patients receiving BMS or DES, except for TVR, there being no difference observed between diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with DES. The impact of diabetes on outcome was confirmed after correction for baseline confounding factors (mortality, P < 0.001; repeat myocardial infarction, P = 0.006; stent thrombosis, P = 0.007; TVR, P = 0.027).CONCLUSIONSThis study shows that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, diabetes is associated with worse long-term mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis in patients receiving DES and BMS. DES implantation, however, does mitigate the known deleterious effect of diabetes on TVR after BMS.

Stent thrombosis identifies a subgroup of patients with STEMI with poor angiographic and early clinical outcomes, suggesting that the management of these patients should be improved.

Concerns have emerged regarding a higher risk of stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, especially in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data to evaluate long-term safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) as compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI. We examined all completed randomized trials on PES for STEMI. Individual patient data were obtained from six trials. We performed survival analyses with the use of Cox-regression analysis stratified according to trial. Kaplan-Meier survival curves are presented with event rates reported as estimated probabilities. A subsequent landmark analysis was performed for patients who were event-free at 1-year follow-up in order to define outcome in terms of early (≤1 year) and late (>1 year) events. A total of six trials were finally included in the meta-analysis with 4435 patients, 2875 (64.8 %) assigned to PES and 1560 (35.2 %) to BMS. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. However, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the DES group were on dual antiplatelet therapy during 3-year follow-up, as compared to BMS. At long-term follow-up (1,095 [1,090-1,155] days), no significant difference between PES and BMS was observed in mortality (9.2 vs 11.9 %, respectively, HR [95 % CI] = 0.84 [0.67, 1.06], p = 0.15, pheterogeneity = 0.59), reinfarction (8.8 vs 7 %, respectively; HR [95 % CI] = 1.10 [0.84, 1.44], p = 0.51, pheterogeneity = 0.32), stent thrombosis (6.7 vs 4.0 % respectively, HR [95 % CI] = 1.13 [0.82, 1.55], p = 0.45, pheterogeneity = 0.99) and TVR (11.9 vs 20.0 %; HR [95 % CI] = 0.64 [0.54, 0.77], p< 0.0001, pheterogeneity = 0.25). Landmark analysis showed that PES was associated with a significantly higher rate of very late reinfarction (>1 year) (5.6 vs 3.9 %, HR [95 % CI] = 1.61 [1.05-2.47], p = 0.03, pheterogeneity = 0.51], very late ST (2.9 vs 1.1 %, HR [95 % CI] = 1.88 [1.00-3.54], p = 0.05, pheterogeneity = 0.94]. The present pooled patient-level meta-analysis demonstrates that among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, PES compared to BMS is associated with a significant reduction in TVR at long-term follow-up. Although there were no differences in cumulative mortality, reinfarction or stent thrombosis, the incidence of very late reinfarction and stent thrombosis was increased with PES.

In experienced hands AngioJet RT can be operated safely and effectively in most patients with acute PE, either massive or submassive, and substantial involvement of pulmonary vascular bed.