Background Newer generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) improve clinical outcome compared to early generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). We investigated whether the advantage in safety and efficacy also holds among the high-risk population of diabetic patients during long-term follow-up. Methods Between 2002 and 2009, a total of 1963 consecutive diabetic patients treated with the unrestricted use of EES (n = 804), SES (n = 612) and PES (n = 547) were followed throughout three years for the occurrence of cardiac events at two academic institutions. The primary end point was the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis. Results The primary outcome occurred in 1.0% of EES, 3.7% of SES and 3.8% of PES treated patients ([EES vs. SES] adjusted HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.88; [EES vs. PES] adjusted HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.67). Similarly, patients treated with EES had a lower risk of target-lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to patients treated with SES and PES ([EES vs. SES], 5.6% vs. 11.5%, adjusted HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.83; [EES vs. PES], 5.6% vs. 11.3%, adjusted HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77). There were no differences in other safety end points, such as all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE. Conclusion In diabetic patients, the unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved outcomes, specifically a significant decrease in the need for TLR and ST compared to early generation SES and PES throughout 3-year follow-up.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Diabetes mellitus, Everolimus-eluting stent, Paclitaxel-eluting stent, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Sirolimus-eluting stent
Persistent URL,
Journal International Journal of Cardiology
Simsek, C, Räber, L, Magro, M, Boersma, H, Onuma, Y, Stefanini, G.G, … Serruys, P.W.J.C. (2013). Long-term outcome of the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents compared to sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients: The Bern-Rotterdam diabetes cohort study. International Journal of Cardiology, 170(1), 36–42. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.10.006