Abstract
Background
Previous studies have shown inconsistent results on the association between diabetes mellitus (DM) and some clinical outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies to assess effect of DM on clinical outcomes after coronary stenting.
Methods
We searched for studies without language restriction in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library prior to 2012. The clinical outcomes including in-stent restenosis (ISR), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Adjusted odds ratio (OR), and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was summarized.
Results
55 studies involving 128,084 total patients (38,416 DM patients and 89,668 controls) were eligible for our analysis. Overall, there were significant associations between DM and ISR (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.53–1.89, I2 = 0.0%), MACE (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.36–1.73, I2 = 29.0%), ST (OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.36–2.97, I2 = 47.7%), TLR (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.26–1.68, I2 = 43.3%) as well as TVR (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.17–1.51, I2 = 48.3). Subgroup analysis showed that the associations were similar between BMS and DES implantation. Moreover, there was no significant association in the ST subgroup after 1–3 years follow-up.
Conclusions
Our meta-analysis suggests that after coronary stent implantation, DM is associated with ISR, MACE, ST, TLR and TVR. DM appears to be a vital risk factor of these clinical outcomes.
Introduction
As one of the most common non-communicable diseases in the world, diabetes mellitus (DM) has a profound impact on the development and progression of coronary artery disease (CAD) [1]–[3]. At present, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including bare metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, is a major and powerful revascularization strategy to treat the stenotic coronary arteries in CAD patients. Despite rapid development of revascularization techniques and adjunct antithrombotic therapies in the modern society, recent findings show that patients have increased rates of negative clinical outcomes compared with those without DM [4]–[6].
Although several studies reported that DM was an independent risk factor of clinical outcomes after coronary stenting [7]–[10], some other studies failed to identify the association in patients after DES implantation [11], [12]. Additionally, several meta-analyses [13], [14] and clinical trials [15], [16] showed inconsistent results which might be caused by 1) uncontrolled or incomplete control for confounding 2) relatively small sample size. Hence, the current findings on associations between DM and a number of clinical outcomes after stenting remain obscure. By using meta-analysis, we sought to accurately evaluate the relationships between DM and clinical outcomes.
Materials and Methods
Search strategy
In order to identify all the studies which examined the association between DM and the clinical outcomes after coronary stenting, we conducted a meta-analysis according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [17]. We systematically searched Cochrane clinical trials database, Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE prior to June, 2012 following search terms: “diabetes mellitus” or “DM”, “stent”, “restenosis”, “major adverse cardiac events” or “MACE”, “thrombosis”, “target lesion revascularization” or “TLR”, “target vessel revascularization” or “TVR”. The search was not restricted by language or publication status. And the references of all retrieved publications were searched again to trace additional relevant studies. Moreover, the relevant review articles and their references were checked. In cases of multiple publications of the same or overlapping cohorts, the most recent ones with largest sample size were selected. At least two independent reviewers screened potentially relevant articles. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or upon consensus from the third reviewer.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies that we identified should meet the following criteria: (1) the study design must be an observational study in human beings; (2) the study must have investigated the association between DM and the clinical outcomes after coronary stenting; (3) the study must have provided data of the associations between DM and clinical outcomes [the adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI)] after multivariate analysis. (4) ISR was defined as ≥50% diameter stenosis of the culprit lesion by quantitative coronary analysis. MACE varied slightly among a few studies, but generally it should consist of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. ST was defined as angiographic proven thrombus or total occlusion within the stent vessel at the time of clinically driven angiography for ischemia. TLR was defined as repeat PCI performed to revascularize the index lesion. TVR was defined as any PCI to revascularize the target vessel. (5) The follow-up duration must be at least 6 months. Excluded criteria were: laboratory studies, review articles, animal studies and the follow-up period shorter than 6 months.
Data Extraction and quality assessment
Two blinded reviewers independently performed data extraction. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through discussion or by the third reviewer. The extracted data included: (1) first author's last name, the publication year, origin of the studied population; (2) characteristics of the study population, (3) stent types, duration of follow-up; (4) study design; (5) adjustment of confounding factors.
Two blinded reviewers independently performed the quality assessment. The quality of non-randomized observational studies was assessed by reporting the key components of study designs in accordance with guidelines of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group [18]. The quality of randomized controlled trials was evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration [19] by estimating the risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition bias (expressed as low risk of bias [A], moderate risk of bias [B], high risk of bias [C], or incomplete reporting leading to inability to ensure the underlying risk of bias [D]).
Statistical analysis
Software STATA version 11.2 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) was used for all analyses. Data were expressed as OR and 95% CI. The individual estimates of the log OR with its standard error from each study were synthesized to obtain the summary estimate of the OR by using inverse variance weighted method.
We assessed the heterogeneity between eligible studies by the Cochran Q test. We considered P values less than 0.10 as an indicator of significant heterogeneity because of the low statistical power. We also used the inconsistency index I2 to quantify heterogeneity [20]. The difference between subgroups was further measured by interaction test [21].
Funnel plot were constructed to assess publication bias by using Egger's linear regression test [22]. P values less than 0.05 indicated significant publication bias.
Results
Literature search
The primary literature search retrieved 1,018 records. After screening according to title, abstract and full text, 55 studies were finally selected including 128,084 total patients (38,416 DM patients and 89,668 controls. 29 studies (See supplement references in File S1) were prospective design, 18 were retrospective design, 8 were RCT. 21 studies were registered in clinical data base. The flow summary of selection process is presented in Figure S1.
Studies characteristics and quality assessment
All the association data was adjusted according to confounding factors. All the studies clearly stated that the included and excluded criteria of subjects for the coronary stent implantation. The procedure of PCI with stent implantation and drug treatment of pre- and post procedure was also clearly stated. The diagnosis of DM was based on patients' history, or the intensively treated with insulin, or an oral antidiabetic agent, or patients had an abnormal blood glycemic level by overnight fasting and glycemic tolerance test according to the World Health Organization criteria. Patient demographics of each study are listed in Table 1,2,3,4,5, S1–S5 in File S1. The quality assessments of the studies are presented in Table S6–S7 in File S1.
Table 1. Characteristics of 20 studies investigating ISR in the meta-analysis.
| Study | Year | Design | Stent | Age | Male | Total Patients | DM patients | FU | OR(95%CI) |
| Amano T(S1) | 2006 | Prospective | BMS | 65 | 124(79.5) | 156 | 59 | 6 m | 2.93(1.11–7.73) |
| Ari H(S2) | 2010 | Prospective | B/D | 60.3 | 80(76.2) | 105 | 12 | 6 m | 1.84(0.64–5.27) |
| Chen YL(S3) | 2009 | Retrospective | BMS | 61 | 499(81.9) | 609 | 197 | 6 m | 1.831(1.274–2.633) |
| Ferrero V(S4) | 2003 | Retrospective | BMS | 66 | 710(82.7) | 858 | 162 | 6 m | 1.5(1.2–1.8) |
| 1.6(1.2–2) | |||||||||
| Hong SN(S5) | 2006 | Retrospective | BMS | 56 | 87(72.5) | 120 | 28 | 6 m | 1.771(0.939–9.34) |
| Hong YJ(S6) | 2007 | Prospective | B/D | 61 | 181(72.7) | 249 | 70 | 6 m | 2.494(0.714–7.342) |
| Ijsselmuiden AJJ(S7) | 2003 | RCT | BMS | 61 | 324(81.0) | 400 | 32 | 6 m | 2.35(1.2–4.6) |
| Ino Y(S8) | 2011 | Retrospective | SES | 68 | 317(63.9) | 496 | 183 | 6–9 m | 2.342(1.117–4.908) |
| Jørgensen E(S9) | 2001 | RCT | BMS | 60 | 293(79.4) | 369 | 29 | 6 m | 3(1–8.7) |
| Kamitani T(S10) | 2005 | Prospective | BMS | 61.8 | 97(89.0) | 109 | 51 | 6 m | 0.96(0.324–2.82) |
| Kim JS(S11) | 2009 | Retrospective | SES | 56 | 394(70.7) | 557 | 142 | 9 m | 1.81(0.77–4.29) |
| Kuwano T(S12) | 2011 | Retrospective | B/D | 67 | 859(79.8) | 1076 | 540 | 8 m | 1.32(0.87–2.01) |
| Liistro F(S13) | 2006 | Prospective | SES | 66 | 188(77.0) | 244 | 61 | 9 m | 3.21(1.01–6.4) |
| Niroomand F(S14) | 2004 | Retrospective | BMS | 63.5 | 225(100.0) | 225 | 48 | 6 m | 2.08(1.12–3.84) |
| Ribichini F(S15) | 2003 | Retrospective | BMS | 62.5 | 737(82.2) | 897 | 125 | 6 m | 2.34(1.61–3.41) |
| Rathore S(S16) | 2009 | Retrospective | SES-PES | 68.2 | 1413(75.0) | 1885 | 697 | 9 m | 1.45(1.07–1.97) |
| Rittersma SZH(S17) | 2004 | Prospective | BMS | 58 | 278(80.6) | 345 | 32 | 6–10 m | 0.87(0.34–2.25) |
| Sahara M(S18) | 2004 | Retrospective | BMS | 66.3 | 80(86.9) | 92 | 18 | 6 m | 2.494(0.716–8.344) |
| Xu YL(S19) | 2011 | Prospective | SES-PES | 57 | 237(78.2) | 303 | 86 | 8 m | 2.046(0.933–4.485) |
| Zairis MN(S20) | 2002 | Prospective | BMS | 59.3 | 396(82.0) | 483 | 95 | 6 m | 2.12(1.3–3.45) |
Table 2. Characteristics of 18 studies investigating MACE in the meta-analysis.
| Study | Year | Design | Stent | Age | Male | Total Patients | DM patients | FU | OR(95%CI) |
| Briguori M(S21) | 2005 | Retrospective | SES | 65.9 | 781(77.2) | 1012 | 222 | 5 y | 1.45(0.62–3.56) |
| Cosgrave J(S22) | 2005 | Prospective | SES-PES | 62.3 | 465(87.9) | 529 | 127 | 9 m | 2.06(1.37–3.10) |
| Fath-Ordoubadi F (S23) | 2012 | RCT | DES | 63.1 | 1268(77.3) | 1640 | 462 | 2 y | 1.54(1.11–2.213) |
| Fujiwara K(S24) | 2002 | Retrospective | BMS | 64.2 | 268(83.0) | 323 | 214 | 6 m | 1.99(1.23–3.22) |
| Gao RL(S25) | 2008 | Prospective | DES | 60 | 967 (81.3) | 1189 | 271 | 9 m | 2.149(1.085–4.256) |
| Gurvitch R(S26) | 2010 | Prospective | DES | 62.6 | 404(71.6) | 564 | 83 | 12 m | 1.75(0.96–3.20) |
| Hoffmann R(S27) | 2007 | Retrospective | B/D | 60 | 595(80.1) | 734 | 164 | 27.5 m | 2.14(1.48–3.07) |
| Ijsselmuiden AJJ(S7) | 2003 | RCT | BMS | 61 | 324(81.0) | 400 | 32 | 6 m | 2.22(1.10–4.40) |
| Kralev S(S28) | 2009 | Prospective | BMS | 65 | 291(73.9) | 394 | 95 | 6 m | 1.42(0.86–2.35) |
| Kuchulakanti PK(S29) | 2005 | Prospective | SES | 64.1 | 897(63.8) | 1407 | 496 | 6 m | 2.3(0.9–5.8) |
| Lee MS(S30) | 2008 | Retrospective | DES | 68 | 651(73.4) | 887 | 244 | 12 m | 2.10(1.06–4.16) |
| Lee SR(S31) | 2008 | Prospective | SES | 62 | 1123(72.8) | 1541 | 380 | 6 m | 1.167(0.680–2.004) |
| Nakamura M(S32) | 2010 | Prospective | SES | 66.2 | 641(72.1) | 889 | 889 | 3 y | 1.535(1.034–2.279) |
| Novack V(S33) | 2009 | Prospective | DES | 63.3 | 494(68.4) | 722 | 256 | 12 m | 1.00(0.71–1.39) |
| Ogita M(S34) | 2011 | Retrospective | BMS | 64.7 | 628(63.9) | 983 | 271 | 2214 d | 1.03(0.65–1.64) |
| Patsa C(S35) | 2011 | Prospective | DES | 61.8 | 423(82.7) | 511 | 173 | 20 m | 2.01(0.99–4.11) |
| Yan BP(S36) | 2011 | Prospective | DES | 64.6 | 6875(74.7) | 9204 | 2209 | 12 m | 1.3(1.1–1.54) |
| Zahn R(S37) | 2010 | RCT | SES | 64.8 | 8826(75.5) | 10894 | 3197 | 6.4 m | 1.48(1.16–1.90) |
Table 3. Characteristics of 18 studies investigating ST in the meta-analysis.
| Study | Year | Design | Stent | Age | Male | Total Patients | DM patients | FU | OR(95%CI) |
| Daemen J1(S38) | 2007 | RCT | SES-PES | 62.6 | 6065(75%) | 8146 | 1315 | 3 y | 0.67(0.2–2.27) |
| 1.22(0.34–4.34) | |||||||||
| Hong SJ(S39) | 2010 | RCT | SES-PES | 65.9 | 125(74.0) | 169 | 169 | 3 y | 1.347(0.266–6.83) |
| Kimura T(S40) | 2012 | Prospective | SES | 68.4 | 9643(75.0) | 12824 | 6312 | 5 y | 3.86(1.51–9.88) |
| Li Y(S41) | 2011 | Prospective | SES | 64.2 | 757(73.6) | 1029 | 235 | 12 m | 6.852(2.091–22.453) |
| Machecourt J(S42) | 2007 | Prospective | SES | 61.9 | 1291(74.5) | 1731 | 844 | 3 y | 2.7(1.4–5.2) |
| Palmerini T(S43) | 2011 | RCT | B/D | 63.7 | 5260(73.4) | 7162 | 1924 | 12 m | 2.39(1.53–3.72) |
| Park DW(S44) | 2009 | Prospective | DES | 62.7 | 2229(70.5) | 3160 | 865 | 29 m | 0.62(0.2–1.94) |
| Pinto Slottow TL(S45) | 2008 | Retrospective | DES | 64.5 | 5492(63.4) | 8402 | 2901 | 2 y | 1.9(1.2–3.1) |
Table 4. Characteristics of 8 studies investigating TLR in the meta-analysis.
| Study | Year | Design | Stent | Age | Male | Total Patients | DM patients | FU | OR(95%CI) |
| Cosgrave J(S46) | 2007 | Retrospective | SES-PES | 62.9 | 1109(86.4) | 1283 | 344 | 9 m | 2.34(1.5–3.65) |
| Freixa X(S47) | 2012 | Retrospective | DES | 62.712 | 86(74.1) | 116 | 73 | 20.4 m | 1.18(0.51–2.72) |
| Hoffmann R(S27) | 2007 | Retrospective | B/D | 60 | 595(80.1) | 734 | 164 | 27.5 m | 1.93(1.13–3.36) |
| Kimura T(S40) | 2012 | Prospective | SES | 68.4 | 9643(75.0) | 12824 | 6312 | <1 y | 1.44(1.26–1.65) |
| 1.19(1.04–1.37) | |||||||||
| Nakamura M(S32) | 2010 | Prospective | SES | 66.2 | 641(72.1) | 889 | 889 | 3 y | 1.676(1.018–2.716) |
| Naidu SS(S48) | 2012 | Prospective | ESE | 64.5 | 5612(69.6) | 8061 | 2860 | 12 m | 1.6(1.23–2.07) |
| Sardi GL(S49) | 2011 | Prospective | DES | 66.2 | 109(55.1) | 198 | 136 | 12 m | 1.16(0.68–1.97) |
| Tahara S(S50) | 2011 | Prospective | SES | 63.7 | 892(66.7) | 1336 | 385 | 12 m | 1.3(0.65–2.6) |
Table 5. Characteristics of 8 studies investigating TVR in the meta-analysis.
| Study | Year | Design | Stent | Age | Male | Total Patients | DM patients | FU | OR(95%CI) |
| Agema WRP(S51) | 2004 | Prospective | BMS | 62.1 | 2250(70.1) | 3177 | 495 | 9.6 m | 1.57(1.19–2.07) |
| Akin I(S52) | 2010 | Prospective | SES-PES | 66.7 | 3910(74.9) | 5218 | 1659 | 12 m | 1.438(0.994–2.081) |
| Gurvitch R(S26) | 2010 | Prospective | DES | 62.6 | 404(71.6) | 564 | 83 | 12 m | 1.45(0.66–3.18) |
| Lemos PA(S53) | 2004 | Prospective | SES | 61 | 670(70.0) | 958 | 160 | 12 m | 1.81(1.1–2.99) |
| Marzocchi A(S54) | 2007 | Prospective | B/D | 68 | 7992(75.2) | 10629 | 2635 | 2 y | 1.26(1.09–1.46) |
| Park DW(S44) | 2009 | Prospective | DES | 62.7 | 2229(70.5) | 3160 | 865 | 29 m | 1.75(1.1–2.78) |
| Singh M(S55) | 2005 | RCT | BMS | 59.9 | 8893(77.4) | 11484 | 2684 | 9 m | 1.088(0.85–1.392) |
| 1.53(1.22–1.92) | |||||||||
| Zahn R(S37) | 2010 | RCT | SES | 64.8 | 8826(75.5) | 10894 | 3197 | 6.4 m | 1.05(0.89–1.25) |
ISR
21 studies including 9,578 total patients and 2,667 DM patients, investigated the association between DM and ISR after coronary stenting. 12 studies were BMS implantation, 5 were DES implantation, and 4 were mixed stent implantation. Overall, there was significant association between DM and ISR (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.53–1.89) (Figure 1), no significant heterogeneity was identified (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.586). Subgroup analysis showed that the association remained significant in BMS (OR = 1.76, 95%CI = 1.54–2.00) as well as DES patients (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.33–2.17) (Figure S2) (P interaction = 0.972). Little publication bias was detected (Egger's test: P = 0.054).
Figure 1. Meta- analysis of the association between DM and ISR.
MACE
18 studies, consisting 33,823 total patients and 9,785 DM patients, investigated the association between DM and MACE after coronary stenting. 13 studies were DES implantation, 4 were BMS implantation, 1 was mixed. After stenting, the overall of DM with MACE was significant (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.36–1.73) (Figure 2). The heterogeneity was mild (I2 = 29.0%, P = 0.121). Subgroup analysis showed that the DM was associated with MACE in BMS (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.25–2.26) as well as DES (OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.30–1.66) implantation (Figure S3). Interestingly, we only found the significant association in the subgroup with follow-up duration less than 3 years (OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.39–1.78) rather than the one with over 3 years follow-up (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.74–1.67) (Figure S4). However, the interaction tests by using method from Altman et al [21] failed to identify significant difference between these 2 subgroups (P interaction = 0.163). In addition, the significance was similar in the subgroups whose follow-up duration was less than 3 years (Less than 1 year, OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.25–1.82; 1–3 years, OR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.41–1.94). The marginal publication bias was detected (Egger's test: P = 0.046).
Figure 2. Meta- analysis of the association between DM and MACE.
ST
There were 8 eligible studies involving 42,623 total patients and 14,565 DM patients. 7 studies were DES implantation and 1 was mixed. Overall association between DM and thrombus after stenting was significant (OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.36–2.97) (Figure 3) and moderate heterogeneity existed (I2 = 47.7%, P = 0.054). Subgroup analysis showed there was significant association in the subgroup whose follow-up duration was less than 1 year (OR = 3.48, 95%CI = 1.30–9.37), but not in over 1 year (OR = 1.49, 95%CI = 0.93–2.38) (Figure S5). Significant difference between subgroups was not detected (P interaction = 0.152). No significant publication bias was indicate by Egger's test (P = 0.496).
Figure 3. Meta- analysis of the association between DM and ST.
TLR
8 studies including 25,441 total patients and 11,163 DM patients were eligible. Almost all the studies used DES implantation except one. Overall, there was significant association between DM and TLR (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.26–1.68) (Figure 4). Moderate heterogeneity existed (I2 = 43.3%, P = 0.079). In the subgroups according to follow-up yeas, the association remained significant (Figure S5) (P interaction = 0.330). No significant publication bias was detected (Egger's test: P = 0.286).
Figure 4. Meta- analysis of the association between DM and TLR.
TVR
8 studies involving 46,084 total patients and 11,778 DM patients were eligible. 2 studies were BMS implantation, 1 studies mixed. Overall association was significant between DM and MACE (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.17–1.51) (Figure 5). Moderate heterogeneity was found (I2 = 48.3%, P = 0.051). The significance was similar in the groups according to stent type (BMS, OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.09–1.73; DES, OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.07–1.80) implantation (Figure S6) and follow-up years (Less than 1 year, OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.13–1.58: over 1 year, OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.03–1.83) (Figure S7). Egger's test indicated no significant publication bias (P = 0.106).
Figure 5. Meta- analysis of the association between DM and TVR.
Discussion
DM patients commonly have increased risk of CAD with more severe disease phenotypes than non-DM controls [23], [24]. Moreover, they have a larger extent of raised atherosclerotic coronary lesions than those non-DM people, which are often associated with negative coronary remodeling such as longer stenotic lesions and smaller diameter vessels [25], [26]. These unfavorable features for PCI result in less efficiency of treatment for both short and long term follow up. DES represents a breakthrough technology for PCI. In a number of randomized trials, DES is powerful and effective for revascularization and reducing restenosis [27]–[29]. Bangalore et al. recently reported the treatment effects by using DES appear to be more efficacious than BMS in DM patients [30]. However, the current opinion of the impact of DM on the clinical outcome remains speculative. In the present study, after analysis of data from 128,084 total patients, we found that DM was associated with several clinical outcomes, and the corresponding negative impact was similar between BMS and DES implantation. Our results suggested there was a remarkable negative effect of DM on coronary stent implantation. Hence, DM should also be taken into account cautiously in the treatment of patients by stent placement.
Generally, ISR, TLR and TVR, are critical indicators of efficacy of stenting to prevent restenosis. We reported there was a significant association between DM and ISR, TLR and TVR. These associations remained remarkable even after one year follow-up, regardless of stent type. Even DES implantation has great benefits in reducing occurrence of ISR, TLR and TVR compared to BMS implantation [14]–[16], the important impact of DM should be considered in the PCI.
The present study found that DM was associated with MACE without significant difference between BMS and DES subgroups. The result was similar among three registry studies [31]–[33], suggesting DM may increase occurrence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. Although our results showed that this association was not significant after three years follow-up, only two studies were included in this subgroup analysis. The interaction test further indicated no difference between these two subgroups. Therefore, it was uncertain whether the association between DM and MACE remained after a long-term follow-up. In addition, the components of MACE were not presented or the definition of MACE was slightly different between some studies. Therefore this result should be interpreted with caution. A large prospective study with longer-term follow-up should be warranted in the future.
It is reported that the ST incidence after stent implantation ranges from 0.5% to 2%, and the ST mortality could even reach 45% [34]. Vascular response to stenting, platelets and coagulation plays important roles in the occurrence of ST [35]. Moreover, ST risk might be even greater in DM patients [5], [6]. Our results showed that after DES implantation within one year follow-up, the liability of DM patients to have ST was two times higher than those non-DM patients. However, the effect of DM was not significant in the subgroup that was followed up more than one year, suggesting this effect might alleviate in a longer-term. Hence, the further studies are warranted.
The present meta-analysis has several advantages in comparison to previous studies. First, our analysis of 55 studies with a larger sample size has a great chance to provide reliable estimates. Second, the odds ratios using in our meta-analysis were all extracted from multivariate regression analysis after adjustment, which might provide a more reliable and accurate assessment. Third, little heterogeneity was detected, suggesting the reliability of the results.
Several limitations should be considered. First, in several studies, the medical therapy to achieve recommended glycemic control targets and management of usual risk factors in these patients did not present in several included studies. No information concerning the level of glycemic control of these patients as well as their medical regimen was given, and medical regimens were simplified into insulin-requiring versus non–insulin-requiring. The validity of analysis was uncertain given these uncontrolled variables. Second, although all the included studies presented the inclusion and exclusion criteria of subjects, the percentage of each specific disease was not specifically presented. Due to a variety of incidence rates of ISR or ST among several common coronary artery diseases, it remains unclear whether our results from the mixed diseases could be used to extrapolate the real situation of a single one, such as the stable angina, unstable angina, and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction [36]–[38]. Third, although all the eligible studies reported that they collected consecutive patients' data, some included studies were retrospective design which might cause several potential biases such as selection bias, misclassification and information bias. Fourth, due to the limited data available, we could not be able to further analyze the effect of DM on different type of DES, such as sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). Several studies reported that the incidence of ISR and some other post-procedural complications are different between SES and PES [39], [40]. Fifth, there was a moderate publication bias in the analysis of DM and MACE (Egger's test: P = 0.046), which indicates a bias of literature selection. Hence, the results should be interpreted with caution and more studies on relationship between DM and MACE are warranted in the future.
In summary, we suggest DM has a pivotal effect on a number of clinical outcomes after coronary stenting. It might play a profound role in the development of ISR, MACE, ST, TLR, and TVR. The complicated mixed effect should be considered in treatment DM patients.
Supporting Information
PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
(DOC)
Flow diagram of the study selection process.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of ISR according to stent type.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of MACE according to stent type.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of MACE according to follow-up.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of ST according to follow-up.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of TLR according to follow-up.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of TVR according to stent type.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of TVR according to follow up.
(TIF)
Supplementary Appendix.
(DOC)
Funding Statement
The authors have no support or funding to report.
References
- 1. Jensen LO, Thayssen P, Mintz GS, Egede R, Maeng M, et al. (2008) Comparison of intravascular ultrasound and angiographic assessment of coronary reference segment size in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 101: 590–595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Nasu K, Tsuchikane E, Katoh O, Fujita H, Surmely JF, et al. (2008) Plaque characterisation by Virtual Histology intravascular ultrasound analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes. Heart 94: 429–433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Nathan DM, Lachin J, Cleary P, Orchard T, Brillon DJ, et al. (2003) Intensive diabetes therapy and carotid intima-media thickness in type 1 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 348: 2294–2303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Carson JL, Scholz PM, Chen AY, Peterson ED, Gold J, et al. (2002) Diabetes mellitus increases short-term mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 40: 418–423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Mehran R, Dangas GD, Kobayashi Y, Lansky AJ, Mintz GS, et al. (2004) Short- and long-term results after multivessel stenting in diabetic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 43: 1348–1354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Mehilli J, Kastrati A, Schuhlen H, Dibra A, Dotzer F, et al. (2004) Randomized clinical trial of abciximab in diabetic patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions after treatment with a high loading dose of clopidogrel. Circulation 110: 3627–3635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hong SJ, Kim MH, Ahn TH, Ahn YK, Bae JH, et al. (2006) Multiple predictors of coronary restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes. Heart 92: 1119–1124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Kishi K, Hiasa Y, Tomokane T, Yamaguchi K, Ogura R, et al. (2005) Efficacy of stenting after rotational atherectomy for ostial LAD and ostial LCX stenosis in patients with diabetes. J Invasive Cardiol 17: 14–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Ma S, Yang D, Zhang X, Tang B, Li D, et al. (2011) Comparison of restenosis rate with sirolimus-eluting stent in STEMI patients with and without diabetes at 6-month angiographic follow-up. Acta Cardiol 66: 603–606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Radke PW, Friese K, Buhr A, Nagel B, Harland LC, et al. (2006) Comparison of coronary restenosis rates in matched patients with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 98: 1218–1222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Iijima R, Ndrepepa G, Mehilli J, Markwardt C, Bruskina O, et al. (2007) Impact of diabetes mellitus on long-term outcomes in the drug-eluting stent era. Am Heart J 154: 688–693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Rathore S, Kinoshita Y, Terashima M, Katoh O, Matsuo H, et al. (2010) A comparison of clinical presentations, angiographic patterns and outcomes of in-stent restenosis between bare metal stents and drug eluting stents. EuroIntervention 5: 841–846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Mahmud E, Bromberg-Marin G, Palakodeti V, Ang L, Creanga D, et al. (2008) Clinical efficacy of drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 51: 2385–2395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Zhang F, Dong L, Ge J (2010) Meta-analysis of five randomized clinical trials comparing sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 105: 64–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Corpus RA, George PB, House JA, Dixon SR, Ajluni SC, et al. (2004) Optimal glycemic control is associated with a lower rate of target vessel revascularization in treated type II diabetic patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 43: 8–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Kornowski R, Fuchs S (2004) Optimization of glycemic control and restenosis prevention in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 43: 15–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283: 2008–2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses: 3rd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics, Oxford, UK, 3–55 July 2000. Available: http://wwwohrica/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxfordhtml.
- 20. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327: 557–560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Altman DG, Bland JM (2003) Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 326: 219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315: 629–634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Haffner SM, Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, Pyorala K, Laakso M (1998) Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 339: 229–234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Laakso M (1999) Hyperglycemia and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 48: 937–942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP, Schneider JP, Topol EJ, et al. (2004) Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation 109: 2290–2295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Kip KE, Faxon DP, Detre KM, Yeh W, Kelsey SF, et al. (1996) Coronary angioplasty in diabetic patients. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Registry. Circulation 94: 1818–1825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, Fitzgerald PJ, Holmes DR, et al. (2003) Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med 349: 1315–1323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, Hermiller J, O'Shaughnessy C, et al. (2004) A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 350: 221–231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Van Belle E, Chmait A, Bauters C, Lablanche JM (2004) Angioplasty in the diabetic patient. J Invasive Cardiol 16: 23–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, Amoroso N, Kirtane AJ, et al. (2012) Outcomes with various drug eluting or bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: mixed treatment comparison analysis of 22,844 patient years of follow-up from randomised trials. BMJ 345: e5170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Fath-Ordoubadi F, Barac Y, Abergel E, Danzi GB, Kerner A, et al. (2012) Gender impact on prognosis of acute coronary syndrome patients treated with drug-eluting stents. Am J Cardiol 110: 636–642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Nakamura M, Yokoi H, Hamazaki Y, Watarai M, Kijima M, et al. (2010) Impact of insulin-treated diabetes and hemodialysis on long-term clinical outcomes following sirolimus-eluting stent deployment. Insights from a sub-study of the Cypher Stent Japan Post-Marketing Surveillance(Cypher J-PMS) Registry. Circ J 74: 2592–2597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Zahn R, Hamm CW, Schneider S, Richardt G, Kelm M, et al. (2010) Coronary stenting with the sirolimus-eluting stent in clinical practice: final results from the prospective multicenter German Cypher Stent Registry. J Interv Cardiol 23: 18–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Iakovou I, Schmidt T, Bonizzoni E, Ge L, Sangiorgi GM, et al. (2005) Incidence, predictors, and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents. JAMA 293: 2126–2130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Luscher TF, Steffel J, Eberli FR, Joner M, Nakazawa G, et al. (2007) Drug-eluting stent and coronary thrombosis: biological mechanisms and clinical implications. Circulation 115: 1051–1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Drozd J, Wojcik J, Malek R, Korona B, Zapolski T, et al. (2010) Acute coronary syndrome - a frequent clinical manifestation of bare metal in-stent restenosis. Kardiol Pol 68: 637–645. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Hong SN, Ahn Y, Yoon NS, Lee KH, Kim YS, et al. (2007) Usefulness of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide to predict in-stent restenosis in patients with preserved left ventricular function and normal troponin I levels. Am J Cardiol 99: 1051–1054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Skowasch D, Jabs A, Andrie R, Luderitz B, Bauriedel G (2005) Progression of native coronary plaques and in-stent restenosis are associated and predicted by increased pre-procedural C reactive protein. Heart 91: 535–536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Kufner S, de Waha A, Tomai F, Park SW, Lee SW, et al. (2011) A meta-analysis of specifically designed randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 162: 740–747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Sidhu MS, Brown JR, Yang RC, DeVries JT, Jayne JE, et al. (2010) Real world, long-term outcomes comparison between paclitaxel-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stent platforms. J Interv Cardiol 23: 167–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
(DOC)
Flow diagram of the study selection process.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of ISR according to stent type.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of MACE according to stent type.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of MACE according to follow-up.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of ST according to follow-up.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of TLR according to follow-up.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of TVR according to stent type.
(TIF)
Subgroup analysis of TVR according to follow up.
(TIF)
Supplementary Appendix.
(DOC)