الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 177 |  |  |
| | | from | 177 | | |
Abstract
Nowadays, the use of Drug-eluting stents (DES) in the interventional cardiology makes a great revolution in this field. The Sirolimus -eluting stents (SES) are considered the most effective of first-generation DES with the least amount of LL reported. However, the advantages of DES use in diabetic groups showed more inadequate and lower beneficial results than the nondiabetic groups. in addition, the fact that the limus-eluting stents are superior to the paclitaxel-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary artery disease. However, this is not typical in diabetic patients. This study aimed to compare short term clinical outcome post- Percutaneous Coronary intervention with Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus Sirolimus -eluting stents (SES) in diabetic patients presented with acute coronary syndromes. The current study was conducted on 120 diabetic patients presented with acute coronary syndromes (Non-STEMI, Unstable angina), admitted to the Cardiology department at Tanta University Hospital, from July 2018 to January 2019. The patients were divided into two groups; group 1 (Everolimus group) included 60 patients who underwent PCI with Everolimus eluting stenting, and group 2 (Sirolimus group) included 60 patients who underwent PCI with Sirolimus -eluting stenting. Clinical follow-up post-PCI for both groups for 3 months‘ duration was done for major adverse cardiac Nevents (MACE). The mean age for the Everolimus group was 64.3 ± 9.7 while the Sirolimus group was 63.9 ± 9.6. Both groups included 80% males 20% females. In group 1, 46 patients presented by hypertension 76.6 % while in group 2, 41 patients presented by hypertension 68.3%. Regarding smoking, in the Everolimus group, 42 patients were smokers 70% while in the Sirolimus group 46 patients were affected by 76.7%. As regards family history, 11.7 %, and 18.3% of patients had a positive family history of CAD in the Everolimus group and the Sirolimus group, respectively. As regards ejection fraction the mean was 59.4 ± 11.3 in the Everolimus group, while in the Sirolimus group the mean was 58.2 ± 12.2. In the Everolimus group, the patients were presented by unstable angina in 46 patients 76.7 % And NONSTEMI in 14 patients 23.3%. While in the Sirolimus group the patients were presented by unstable angina in 38 patients 63.3 % And NONSTEMI in 22 patients 36.7%. In the Everolimus group, the patients were presented by Single vessel disease in 44 patients 73.3%, and % Multivessel disease in 16 patients 26.7%. While in the Sirolimus group the patients were presented by unstable angina in 38 patients 63.3 % and Multivessel disease in 22 patients 36.7%. The mean of total stent length was 37.1 ± 24.4 in the Everolimus group while it was 41.5 ± 26.2 in the Sirolimus group. All patients in both groups were maintained on aspirin, statin, and Antidiabetic drugs 100%. In the Everolimus group, the patients who were on Plavix, ticagrelor, B Blockers, ACE inhibitor, and Angiotensin receptor antagonists represented 88.3 %, 11.7 %, 61.7%, 70 %, 23.3%, respectively. While in the Sirolimus group the patients who were on Plavix, ticagrelor, B Blockers, ACE inhibitor, and Angiotensin receptor antagonists represented 80 %, 20 %, 66.7 %, 78.3 %, and 15%, respectively. In the Everolimus group, 3 patients (5%) had sudden cardiac death while it was only in 2 patients (3.3%) in the Sirolimus group. No acute coronary syndrome was encountered or coronary angiography was done in the follow-up period. Symptoms Congestive heart failure in the Everolimus group and the Sirolimus group were 6.7% and 8.3% respectively. Finally, Complete revascularization was done in 4 cases in the Everolimus group roup 6.7,% and in 6 cases in the Sirolimus group 10%.