Clinical Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloon in Coronary Patients with and without Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicenter, Propensity Score Study.
Journal
Journal of diabetes research
ISSN: 2314-6753
Titre abrégé: J Diabetes Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101605237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
08
06
2021
accepted:
15
07
2021
entrez:
9
8
2021
pubmed:
10
8
2021
medline:
11
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Relative to nondiabetic patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with inferior clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients. In this observational, prospective, multicenter study, we compared the outcomes of patients with and without DM after undergoing PCI with DCBs. Target lesion failure (TLF) was analyzed as primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and any revascularization. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Among 2,306 eligible patients, 578 with DM and 578 without DM had similar propensity scores and were included in the analyses. During follow-up (366 ± 46 days), compared with DM patients, patients without DM were associated with a lower yearly incidence of TLF (2.77% vs. 5.36%; OR, 1.991; 95% CI, 1.077 to 3.681; Diabetic patients experience higher TLF and TLR rates following DCB angioplasty without substantial increase in the risk of MACE, cardiac death, MI, or revascularization.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Relative to nondiabetic patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with inferior clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS
RESULTS
In this observational, prospective, multicenter study, we compared the outcomes of patients with and without DM after undergoing PCI with DCBs. Target lesion failure (TLF) was analyzed as primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and any revascularization. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Among 2,306 eligible patients, 578 with DM and 578 without DM had similar propensity scores and were included in the analyses. During follow-up (366 ± 46 days), compared with DM patients, patients without DM were associated with a lower yearly incidence of TLF (2.77% vs. 5.36%; OR, 1.991; 95% CI, 1.077 to 3.681;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Diabetic patients experience higher TLF and TLR rates following DCB angioplasty without substantial increase in the risk of MACE, cardiac death, MI, or revascularization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34368364
doi: 10.1155/2021/5495219
pmc: PMC8342102
doi:
Substances chimiques
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5495219Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Liang Pan et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jan 15;350(3):221-31
pubmed: 14724301
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996 Mar 1;27(3):528-35
pubmed: 8606261
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009 May;85(5):474-80
pubmed: 19279567
J Cardiol. 2019 Feb;73(2):151-155
pubmed: 30366637
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jun 22;13(12):1391-1402
pubmed: 32473887
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 6;362(18):1663-74
pubmed: 20445180
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Nov;5(11):1141-9
pubmed: 23174638
BMJ. 2012 Aug 10;345:e5170
pubmed: 22885395
Circulation. 2018 Jun 12;137(24):2635-2650
pubmed: 29891620
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Jan;21(1):78-85
pubmed: 30956042
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Mar;96(12):e6397
pubmed: 28328833
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Dec 28;8(15):2003-2009
pubmed: 26627997
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Apr;6(4):357-68
pubmed: 23523454
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2019 Nov 8;19(1):250
pubmed: 31703628
Clin Res Cardiol. 2015 Mar;104(3):217-25
pubmed: 25349065
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Jul 15;263:17-23
pubmed: 29685691
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Feb 4;63(4):299-307
pubmed: 24211507
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 7;40(2):87-165
pubmed: 30165437
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 30;72(18):2231-2264
pubmed: 30153967
N Engl J Med. 2002 Jun 6;346(23):1773-80
pubmed: 12050336
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2005;6 Suppl 1:S48-58
pubmed: 15665798
Am J Cardiol. 1991 Aug 15;68(5):467-71
pubmed: 1872273
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 14;39(3):213-260
pubmed: 28886622
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 29;11(1):e0147057
pubmed: 26824602
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2012 Sep-Oct;13(5):265-71
pubmed: 22796496
Lancet. 2020 Nov 7;396(10261):1504-1510
pubmed: 33091360
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Feb;36(2):171-178
pubmed: 31919705
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Dec;5(6):763-71
pubmed: 23149332
EuroIntervention. 2011 May;7 Suppl K:K83-92
pubmed: 22027736
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Dec 24;11(24):2467-2476
pubmed: 30573057