Dataset Information

Comparative effect of statin intensity between prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus after implanting newer-generation drug-eluting stents in Korean acute myocardial infarction patients: a retrospective observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Comparative studies regarding the long-term clinical outcomes of statin intensity between acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with prediabetes and those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), after successful implantation of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) with statin treatment, are limited. We compared the 2-year clinical outcomes between these patients.

Methods

A total of 11,612 AMI patients were classified as statin users (n = 9893) and non-users (n = 1719). Thereafter, statin users were further divided into high-intensity (n = 2984) or low-moderate-intensity statin (n = 6909) treatment groups. Those in these two groups were further classified into patients with normoglycemia, prediabetes, and T2DM. The major outcomes were the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (Re-MI), or any repeat coronary revascularization.

Results

After adjusting for both high-intensity and low-moderate-intensity statin users, the cumulative incidences of MACE (p = 0.737, p = 0.062, respectively), all-cause death, Re-MI, and any repeat revascularization were similar between the prediabetes and T2DM groups. In the total study population, both high-intensity and low-moderate-intensity statin treatments showed comparable results. However, in the patients who enrolled after October 2012, the cumulative incidences of MACE (aHR 1.533; 95% CI 1.144-2.053; p = 0.004) and any repeat revascularization (aHR, 1.587; 95% CI 1.026-2.456; p = 0.038) were significantly lower in high-intensity statin users than in low-moderate intensity statin users. The beneficial effects of high-intensity compared to low-moderate-intensity statin therapy were more apparent in the normoglycemia group than hyperglycemia group, as it reduced the cumulative incidences of MACE (aHR 1.903; 95% CI 1.203-3.010; p = 0.006) and any repeat revascularization (aHR 3.248; 95% CI 1.539-6.854; p = 0.002).

Conclusions

In this retrospective registry study, prediabetes and T2DM groups showed comparable clinical outcomes, after administering both high-intensity and low-moderate-intensity statin treatments. However, these results are likely to be clearly proved by further studies, especially in patients with AMI who are being treated in contemporary practice.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered.

SUBMITTER: Kim YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8351104 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions was associated with worse outcomes in the era of bare-metal and first-generation drug-eluting stents. Data on percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with newer-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. Therefore, we investigated the impact of lesion calcification on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Methods and Results Patients (n=2361) from BIOFLOW II, IV, and V trials were categorized into moderate/severe versus none/mild lesion calcification by a core laboratory. End points were target-lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization) and probable/definite stent thrombosis at 2 years. The agreement in calcification assessment between the operator and the core laboratory was weak (weighted κ, 0.23). Patients with moderate/severe calcification (n=303; 16%) had higher TLF (13.5% versus 8.4%; P=0.003) and stent thrombosis rates (2.1% versus 0.2%; P<0.0001), whereas target-lesion revascularization was not different between the groups (5.0% versus 3.9%; P=0.302). After adjustment, calcification did not emerge as an independent predictor of TLF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.37; 95% CI, 0.89-2.08; P=0.148) but did for target-vessel myocardial infarction (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.68; P=0.037). TLF rates were similar between bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (12.6% versus 15.4%, P=0.482) in moderate/severe calcification. In none/mild calcification, the bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed lower TLF (7.5% versus 10.3%, P=0.045). Conclusions With newer-generation drug-eluting stents, moderate/severe lesion calcification was not associated with more TLF after adjustment for the higher risk of patients with coronary calcification, whereas the rate of target-vessel myocardial infarction was higher. The bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent were equally effective and safe in calcified lesions. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946.

Project description:Background The choice of optimal drug-eluting stent therapy for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with DM. Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization) trial (NCT01443104), patients randomly assigned to ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES were stratified according to diabetic status. The primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, at 5 years. Among 2119 patients, 486 (22.9%) presented with DM. Compared with individuals without DM, patients with DM were older and had a greater baseline cardiac risk profile. In patients with DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 74 patients (cumulative incidence, 31.0%) treated with BP-SES and 57 patients (25.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87-1.73 [P=0.24]). In individuals without DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 124 patients (16.8%) treated with BP-SES and 132 patients (16.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77-1.26 [P=0.90; P for interaction=0.31]). Cumulative 5-year incidence rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis were similar among patients with DM treated with BP-SES or DP-EES. There was no interaction between diabetic status and treatment effect of BP-SES versus DP-EES. Conclusions In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, we found no difference in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with DM treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.