Differential long‐term outcomes of zotarolimus‐eluting stents compared with sirolimus‐eluting and paclitaxel‐eluting stents in diabetic and nondiabetic patients: Two‐year subgroup analysis of the ZEST randomized trial. Issue 7 (9th February 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jang, Sun‐Joo; Park, Duk‐Woo; Kim, Won‐Jang; Kim, Young‐Hak; Yun, Sung‐Cheol; Kang, Soo‐Jin; Lee, Seung‐Whan; Lee, Cheol Whan; Park, Seong‐Wook; Park, Seung‐Jung
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 81:Issue 7(2013:Jun. 01)
• Page Start: 1106
• Page End: 1114
• Publication Date: 2013-02-09
• Subjects: Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.24603
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="ccd24603-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Objectives</title> <p>To evaluate the differential treatment effects of zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES), sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES), and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) according to diabetic status.</p> </sec> <sec id="ccd24603-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>Diabetic patients have a higher risk of ischemic complications after stenting than nondiabetic patients.</p> </sec> <sec id="ccd24603-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Using data from the ZEST randomized trial, comparing ZES with SES and PES, we evaluated relative outcomes among stents in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia‐driven target‐vessel revascularization.</p> </sec> <sec id="ccd24603-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>Of the 2, 645 patients enrolled in the ZEST trial, 760 (29%) had diabetes mellitus. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar in the three stent groups, regardless of diabetic status. In diabetic patients, ZES showed similar rates of MACE as compared to PES (13.8% vs. 15.3%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.58), but higher rates of MACE than SES (13.8% vs. 7.7%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.05). In nondiabetic patients, ZES showed similar rates of MACE as compared to SES (10.3% vs. 10.8%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.72), whereas significantly lower rates of MACE compared to PES (10.3% vs. 15.3%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.01). In comparing the ZES and SES groups, there was a substantial interaction between diabetic status and stent types on MACE occurrence (Interaction <italic>P</italic> = 0.07). However, in comparison of ZES and PES, there were no significant interactions between diabetes and stent type on MACE (Interaction <italic>P</italic> = 0.25).</p> </sec> <sec id="ccd24603-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>In diabetic patients, SES showed the lowest rate of MACE compared with ZES and PES. But, in nondiabetic patients, SES and ZES showed significantly lower rates of MACE than PES. ZES shows a diabetes‐related interaction on MACE compared with SES, but not with PES. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</p> </sec> </abstract>