Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2004.07.002
DC FieldValue
dc.titleDirect Stenting Compared to Conventional Stenting in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Elective Angioplasty for Coronary Artery Disease (DECIDE): A multicenter, open label, randomized, controlled efficacy study
dc.contributor.authorTan, H.C.
dc.contributor.authorLim, Y.T.
dc.contributor.authorLee, C.H.
dc.contributor.authorRosli, T.L.A.
dc.contributor.authorIsmail, O.
dc.contributor.authorSim, K.H.
dc.contributor.authorTan, K.H.
dc.contributor.authorAzman, W.
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-17T08:55:07Z
dc.date.available2014-12-17T08:55:07Z
dc.date.issued2004
dc.identifier.citationTan, H.C., Lim, Y.T., Lee, C.H., Rosli, T.L.A., Ismail, O., Sim, K.H., Tan, K.H., Azman, W. (2004). Direct Stenting Compared to Conventional Stenting in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Elective Angioplasty for Coronary Artery Disease (DECIDE): A multicenter, open label, randomized, controlled efficacy study. American Heart Journal 148 (6) : 1007-1011. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2004.07.002
dc.identifier.issn00028703
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/117625
dc.description.abstractBackground Direct stenting (DS) has been shown to be associated with reduced radiation exposure and procedural costs but has a restenosis rate and clinical outcomes similar to conventional stenting (CS) with balloon predilatation. Whether DS confers benefit in diabetic patients, who have been shown to have high restenosis risk after stent implantation, remains unknown. Methods In a multicenter randomized trial, diabetic patients undergoing elective coronary stent implantation for a de novo lesion in a native coronary artery between April 2001 and October 2002 were randomized into DS or CS treatment groups. All patients received NirElite stents (SciMed, Boston Scientific, Maple Grove, Minn). They were scheduled to undergo a 6-month angiographic follow-up with quantitative coronary analysis evaluation. The primary end point was a 6-month binary restenosis rate and the secondary end point involved 6-month all-cause mortality, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization rates. Results A total of 128 diabetic patients were randomized into DS or CS treatment groups (n = 64, both groups). The 2 groups were well matched in baseline and lesion characteristics. The procedural success rate was similar (DC vs CS; 98.4% vs 96.9%). Nineteen patients (29.7%) crossed over from DS to CS. Six-month angiographic follow-up showed similar restenosis rates, minimum luminal diameter and late lumen loss. The binary restenosis rate was 43% in DS and 52% in CS groups (P = NS). The 6-month all-cause mortality, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization rates were also similar in both groups. Conclusions Among diabetic patients undergoing elective coronary stent implantation, DS is safe and feasible. However, it is not associated with reduction in restenosis rate or improvement in clinical outcomes when compared with CS.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2004.07.002
dc.sourceScopus
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentMEDICINE
dc.description.doi10.1016/j.ahj.2004.07.002
dc.description.sourcetitleAmerican Heart Journal
dc.description.volume148
dc.description.issue6
dc.description.page1007-1011
dc.description.codenAHJOA
dc.identifier.isiut000225970400015
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

9
checked on Dec 3, 2021

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

6
checked on Nov 25, 2021

Page view(s)

89
checked on Dec 2, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.