Comparative Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing PPCI.

Hassan Shabeer, Saba Sattar, F N U Arti, Haimath Kumar, Kashif Iltaf, Muhammad Zaryab Haider, Burhan Ul Haq Saqib, Muhammad Hassan Bari, Ali Karim, Sameet Kumar, F N U Shweta, F N U Payal, F N U Rumela, Mehak Gul Mastoi, Abida Parveen
{"title":"Comparative Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing PPCI.","authors":"Hassan Shabeer, Saba Sattar, F N U Arti, Haimath Kumar, Kashif Iltaf, Muhammad Zaryab Haider, Burhan Ul Haq Saqib, Muhammad Hassan Bari, Ali Karim, Sameet Kumar, F N U Shweta, F N U Payal, F N U Rumela, Mehak Gul Mastoi, Abida Parveen","doi":"10.1002/ccd.70220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The comparative outcomes of DEB vs. DES in diabetic patients undergoing PPCI are of significant clinical interest, as these patients often experience higher rates of restenosis and adverse outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to compare the outcomes of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in diabetic patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of 5668 diabetic patients who underwent PPCI, with 1734 patients in the DEB group and 3934 patients in the DES group. Baseline characteristics, angiographic features, and clinical outcomes, including procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), restenosis, and bleeding complications, were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both DEB and DES groups demonstrated high procedural success rates (97.6% and 98.4%, respectively), with no significant differences in MACE, death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Restenosis at 6 months occurred in 3.9% of the DEB group and 3.4% of the DES group (p = 0.21). Lesion length, diabetes duration, hypertension, and prior myocardial infarction were identified as significant predictors of adverse outcomes. Use of DES was associated with a higher risk of MACE, but this did not translate into significant differences in clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both DEB and DES are effective and safe treatment options for diabetic patients undergoing PPCI, with comparable outcomes in terms of procedural success, MACE, and restenosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":520583,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.70220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The comparative outcomes of DEB vs. DES in diabetic patients undergoing PPCI are of significant clinical interest, as these patients often experience higher rates of restenosis and adverse outcomes.

Aims: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in diabetic patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 5668 diabetic patients who underwent PPCI, with 1734 patients in the DEB group and 3934 patients in the DES group. Baseline characteristics, angiographic features, and clinical outcomes, including procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), restenosis, and bleeding complications, were compared between the two groups.

Results: Both DEB and DES groups demonstrated high procedural success rates (97.6% and 98.4%, respectively), with no significant differences in MACE, death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Restenosis at 6 months occurred in 3.9% of the DEB group and 3.4% of the DES group (p = 0.21). Lesion length, diabetes duration, hypertension, and prior myocardial infarction were identified as significant predictors of adverse outcomes. Use of DES was associated with a higher risk of MACE, but this did not translate into significant differences in clinical outcomes.

Conclusion: Both DEB and DES are effective and safe treatment options for diabetic patients undergoing PPCI, with comparable outcomes in terms of procedural success, MACE, and restenosis.

药物洗脱球囊与药物洗脱支架在糖尿病患者PPCI中的比较结果。
背景:DEB和DES在接受PPCI的糖尿病患者中的比较结果具有重要的临床意义,因为这些患者经常经历更高的再狭窄率和不良后果。目的:本研究旨在比较药物洗脱球囊(DEB)与药物洗脱支架(DES)在接受原发性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)的糖尿病患者中的效果。方法:回顾性分析5668例行PPCI的糖尿病患者,其中DEB组1734例,DES组3934例。比较两组患者的基线特征、血管造影特征和临床结果,包括手术成功、主要不良心血管事件(MACE)、靶病变血运重建术(TLR)、再狭窄和出血并发症。结果:DEB组和DES组均表现出较高的手术成功率(分别为97.6%和98.4%),在MACE、死亡、心肌梗死或靶血管重建术方面无显著差异。6个月时DEB组再狭窄发生率为3.9%,DES组为3.4% (p = 0.21)。病变长度、糖尿病病程、高血压和既往心肌梗死被认为是不良结局的重要预测因素。使用DES与较高的MACE风险相关,但这并未转化为临床结果的显着差异。结论:对于接受PPCI的糖尿病患者,DEB和DES都是有效且安全的治疗选择,在手术成功率、MACE和再狭窄方面具有相当的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信