Search

Background: Limited data are available on the long-term effects of contemporary drug-eluting stents versus contemporary bare-metal stents on rates of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis and on quality of life.Methods: We randomly assigned 9013 patients who had stable or unstable coronary artery disease to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the implantation of either contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents. In the group receiving drug-eluting stents, 96% of the patients received either everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause and nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction after a median of 5 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and quality of life.Results: At 6 years, the rates of the primary outcome were 16.6% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 17.1% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.09; P=0.66). There were no significant between-group differences in the components of the primary outcome. The 6-year rates of any repeat revascularization were 16.5% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 19.8% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.85; P<0.001); the rates of definite stent thrombosis were 0.8% and 1.2%, respectively (P=0.0498). Quality-of-life measures did not differ significantly between the two groups.Conclusions: In patients undergoing PCI, there were no significant differences between those receiving drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents in the composite outcome of death from any cause and nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction. Rates of repeat revascularization were lower in the group receiving drug-eluting stents. (Funded by the Norwegian Research Council and others; NORSTENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00811772 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: Denervation of renal sympathetic nerves (RDN) is an invasive endovascular procedure introduced as an antihypertensive treatment with a potential beneficial effect on insulin resistance (IR). We have previously demonstrated a reduction in blood pressure (BP) six months after RDN, but severe hepatic and peripheral IR, assessed by glucose tracer and two step hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (HEC), did not improve. The aim of the current study was to evaluate IR and adipokines profiles in relation to BP and arterial stiffness changes two years after RDN., Methods: In 20 non-diabetic patients with true treatment-resistant hypertension, ambulatory and office BP were measured after witnessed intake of medications prior to, six and 24 months after RDN. Arterial stiffness index (AASI) was calculated from ambulatory BP. Insulin sensitivity (IS) was assessed using an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), the Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA-IR), HOMA-Adiponectin Model Assessment (HOMA-AD), the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), the Triglyceride and Glucose Index (TyG) and the Leptin-to-Adiponectin Ratio (LAR). These surrogate indices of IS were compared with tracer/HEC measurements to identify which best correlated in this group of patients., Results: All measured metabolic variables and IS surrogate indices remained essentially unchanged two years after RDN apart from a significant increase in HOMA-AD. OGTT peak at 30 min correlated best with reduction in endogenous glucose release (EGR) during low insulin HEC (r = -0.6, p = 0.01), whereas HOMA-IR correlated best with whole-body glucose disposal (WGD) (r = -0.6, p = 0.01) and glucose infusion rate (r = -0.6, p = 0.01) during high insulin HEC. BP response was unrelated to IS prior to RDN. Nocturnal systolic BP and arterial stiffness before RDN correlated positively with a progression in hepatic IR at six-month follow-up., Conclusion: IR, adiponectin and leptin did not improve two years after RDN. There was no correlation between baseline IS and BP response. Our study does not support the notion of a beneficial metabolic effect of RDN in patients with treatment resistant hypertension., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)