Search

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent evidences suggest a differential impact of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated DM on prognosis. We evaluated the clinical outcome of diabetic patients after PCI with polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent from the RUDI-FREE Registry, investigating a possible different prognostic impact of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated DM. A total of 1,104 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent, enrolled in the RUDI-FREE observational, multicenter, single-arm registry, were stratified by diabetic status; diabetic population was further divided on the basis of insulin treatment. Primary end points of the study were target lesion failure (TLF; composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (composite of cardiac death, stroke, and myocardial infarction). Multiple ischemic adverse events were also single-handedly considered as secondary end points. At 1 year, TLF was significantly higher in the diabetic cohort, as compared with nondiabetic patients (6.0% vs 3.1%, p 0.022). None of the end points resulted significantly different between nondiabetics and noninsulin-treated diabetic patients. Divergently, compared with nondiabetic, insulin-treated diabetic patients faced significant higher rates of TLF (10.8% vs 3.1%, p 0.003), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (10.8% vs 3.4%, p 0.004), and of most of the analyzed adverse events. In conclusion, patients with DM had a higher risk of TLF compared with nondiabetics; nonetheless, the worse outcome of the diabetic population seems to be driven by the insulin-treated diabetic subpopulation. This finding suggests a different risk profile of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated diabetic patients in the modern era of PCI.

Aims Polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents (PF-BES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients treated with one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, limited evidence is available on PF-BES in non-HBR patients. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PF-BES in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results Patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing PCI with PF-BES in routine clinical practice were included in a multicentre, prospective registry. DAPT duration was left to the discretion of the operator. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) at one year. Overall, 1,104 consecutive patients treated with PF-BES were included at 16 Italian centres. Mean age was 68.7±11.2 years, 77.2% of patients were male, 30% had diabetes, 15.1% had chronic kidney disease, and 40.5% had ACS at baseline. Mean CRUSADE score was 24.1±13.1, and 83.7% of patients did not have high bleeding risk features. At one year, the primary endpoint occurred in 4.1% of patients, cardiovascular death in 2.4%, MI in 1.8%, and definite/probable ST in 1.1%. With respect to efficacy, target lesion revascularisation occurred in 1.2% of patients. Conclusions This is the first study providing clinical evidence on the use of PF-BES in all-comer patients irrespective of HBR status. Our findings suggest that PF-BES has a favourable safety and efficacy profile in a real-world clinical setting. Further investigation in randomised clinical trials against new-generation DES is warranted.

Objectives This study sought to investigate the efficacy and performance of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions in patients with 2- to 3-vessel multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD). Background Drug-eluting stents (DES) have emerged as an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with MV-CAD although first-generation DES yielded inferior efficacy and safety compared with surgery. Methods Prospective, randomized (1:1), multicenter feasibility trial was designed to assess angiographic efficacy of EES compared with the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in 200 patients, and a prospective, open-label, single-arm, controlled registry was designed to analyze the clinical outcome of EES at 1-year follow-up in 400 MV-CAD patients. For the randomized trial, the primary endpoint was in-stent late loss at 9 months. For the registry, the primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 12 months. Results The primary endpoint per single lesion was significantly lower in the EES group compared with the PES group (−0.03 ± 0.49 mm vs. 0.23 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.001). Similar results were observed when analyzing all lesions (0.05 ± 0.51 mm vs. 0.24 ± 0.50 mm, p Conclusions The EXECUTIVE trial was a randomized pilot trial dedicated to the comparison of the efficacy of 2 different DES among patients with 2- to 3-vessel MV-CAD. The study shows lower in-stent late loss at 9 months with the EES XIENCE V compared with the PES TAXUS Liberte, and a low major adverse cardiac event rate at 1 year in patients with 2-to 3-vessel MV-CAD. (EXECUTIVE [EXecutive RCT: Evaluating XIENCE V in a Multi Vessel Disease]; NCT00531011 )