Effects of low dose pioglitazone on restenosis and coronary atherosclerosis in diabetic patients undergoing drug eluting stent implantation

Effects of pioglitazone on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

In 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. After identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) as critical outcomes, the experts decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of pioglitazone with this respect.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify RCTs, up to June 1st, 2021, with duration≥52 weeks, in which pioglitazone was compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE and HHF (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes), all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered. Eight RCTs were included in the analysis for MACEs and HF (5048 and 5117 patients in the pioglitazone and control group, respectively), and 24 in that for all-cause mortality (10,682 and 9674 patients). Pioglitazone neither significantly increased nor reduced the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF in comparison with placebo/active comparators (MH-OR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-1.03, 0.91, 95% CI 0.77, 1.09, and 1.16, 95% CI 0.73, 1.83, respectively). Pioglitazone was associated with a significant reduction of MACE in patients with prior cardiovascular events (MH-OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed no significant effects of pioglitazone on incident MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF.

Rethinking pioglitazone as a cardioprotective agent: a new perspective on an overlooked drug

Since 1985, the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone has been widely used as an insulin sensitizer drug for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Although fluid retention was early recognized as a safety concern, data from clinical trials have not provided conclusive evidence for a benefit or a harm on cardiac function, leaving the question unanswered. We reviewed the available evidence encompassing both in vitro and in vivo studies in tissues, isolated organs, animals and humans, including the evidence generated by major clinical trials. Despite the increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure due to fluid retention, pioglitazone is consistently associated with reduced risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke both in primary and secondary prevention, without any proven direct harm on the myocardium. Moreover, it reduces atherosclerosis progression, in-stent restenosis after coronary stent implantation, progression rate from persistent to permanent atrial fibrillation, and reablation rate in diabetic patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation. In fact, human and animal studies consistently report direct beneficial effects on cardiomyocytes electrophysiology, energetic metabolism, ischemia–reperfusion injury, cardiac remodeling, neurohormonal activation, pulmonary circulation and biventricular systo-diastolic functions. The mechanisms involved may rely either on anti-remodeling properties (endothelium protective, inflammation-modulating, anti-proliferative and anti-fibrotic properties) and/or on metabolic (adipose tissue metabolism, increased HDL cholesterol) and neurohormonal (renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, sympathetic nervous system, and adiponectin) modulation of the cardiovascular system. With appropriate prescription and titration, pioglitazone remains a useful tool in the arsenal of the clinical diabetologist.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review.

RESULTS

764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 3 to 40 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with some differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019153180.

Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials

The safety and usefulness of pioglitazone (Pio) is repeatedly called into question due to the contradictory information available about it. A meta-analysis and risk benefit assessment was conducted to address the various points of debate regarding Pio. Electronic database search (Cochrane library, Embase & PubMed) resulted in 10 citations eligible for this meta-analysis (prospective, randomised studies), which was conducted using CMA software version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA). The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019122403) and compared pioglitazone with a control (anti-hyperglycemic agents without pioglitazone) in patients with either established cardiovascular disease or having high cardiovascular risk. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis were conducted to differentiate the effect of Pio against active controls and placebo. The use of Pio compared to the control group that did not use Pio resulted in a 14% and 23% significant reduction in odds of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: MH-OR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.75–0.98), and stroke (MH-OR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.60–0.99), respectively. This reduction in stroke was not significant in comparison to placebo on subgroup analysis. However, Pio significantly increased odds of heart failure (HF) (MH-OR, 1.47; 95% CI 1.26–1.71) as well as hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) (MH-OR, 1.48; 95% CI 1.21–1.81). In addition, the use of Pio was associated with a significant increase in odds of fractures in women (MH-OR, 2.05; 95% CI 1.28–3.27) and anaemia (MH-OR, 2.56; 95% CI 1.55–4.21). Pio has no significant effect on bladder cancer nor macular oedema. Pio has salutary effects on MACE. The positive effects are completely offset by the harm they seem to cause by way of heart failure, fractures, and anaemia. Pio should therefore be reserved for treatment of T2D with high CV risk or established cardiovascular (CV) disease only in selected patients where other antidiabetics are precluded and not routinely.

Pioglitazone for the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Patients with or at High Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

The goal of the meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of pioglitazone on the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and renal adverse events in patients with or at high risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pioglitazone with any control were identified through PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Cardiovascular outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs, defined as the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death), hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. Renal outcomes included change in urinary albumin to creatinine ratio and 24-hour urinary protein excretion. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies with 19 645 participants were enrolled. Pioglitazone reduced the risk of MACE (RR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.7-0.9]), with benefit only seen in patients with a history of established CVDs (0.8 [0.7-0.9]) and not in those without (1.0 [0.7-1.3]). Regarding the individual components, pioglitazone reduced the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (0.8 [0.6-1.0]) and nonfatal stroke (0.8 [0.7-0.9]), which was confined to patients with a history of established CVDs, whereas no treatment effect was found on cardiovascular death (1.0 [0.7-1.2]) regardless of the presence of established CVDs. Pioglitazone increased the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (1.3 [1.1-1.6]) and had no treatment effect on all-cause mortality (1.0 [0.8-1.1]). Pioglitazone reduced albuminuria by 18.5% (WMD 18.5% [95% CI, 21.1-16.0]), with a similar benefit in patients with different renal function categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Pioglitazone should be considered in patients with or at high risk of T2DM for the prevention of cardiovascular endpoints, especially in those with a history of established CVD who might benefit the most. Robust reductions in progression of renal disease are seen regardless of baseline renal function degree.

GLUcose COntrol Safety & Efficacy in type 2 DIabetes, a systematic review and NETwork meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The last international consensus on the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommends SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists for patients with clinical cardiovascular (CV) disease; metformin remains the first-line glucose lowering medication. Last studies suggested beneficial effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, in secondary CV prevention. Recently, a potential benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in primary CV prevention also has been suggested. However, no comparison of all the new and the old hypoglycemic drugs is available on CV outcomes. We aimed to compare the effects of old and new hypoglycemic drugs in T2D, on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical trials. Randomized trials, blinded or not, assessing contemporary hypoglycemic drugs on mortality or MACE in patients with T2D, were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. References screening and data extraction were done by multiple observers. Each drug was analyzed according to its therapeutic class. A random Bayesian network meta-analysis model was used. The primary outcomes were overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE. Severe adverse events and severe hypoglycemia were also recorded. 175,966 patients in 34 trials from 1970 to 2018 were included. No trials evaluating glinides or alpha glucosidase inhibitors were found. 17 trials included a majority of patients with previous cardiovascular history, 16 trials a majority of patients without. Compared to control, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.84 [95% CrI: 0.74; 0.95]), SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.89 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.98] and OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.95], respectively). Compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.82 [95% CrI: 0.69; 0.98]), GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.79; 0.99]). Insulin was also associated with an increased risk of MACE compared to GLP-1 agonists (OR = 1.19 [95% CrI: 1.01; 1.42]). Insulin and sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. In the trials including a majority of patients without previous CV history, the comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, metformin and control did not showed significant differences on primary outcomes. We limited our analysis at the therapeutic class level.

CONCLUSIONS

SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists have the most beneficial effects, especially in T2D patients with previous CV diseases. Direct comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists and metformin are needed, notably in primary CV prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016043823.

Pioglitazone Induces Cardiomyocyte Apoptosis and Inhibits Cardiomyocyte Hypertrophy Via VEGFR-2 Signaling Pathway

Background

Pioglitazone has been widely used as an insulin-sensitizing agent for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, cardiovascular risk and protective effects of pioglitazone remain controversial.

Objectives

In this study, we investigated whether pioglitazone affects cardiomyocyte apoptosis and hypertrophy by regulating the VEGFR-2 signaling pathway.

Methods

Cardiomyocytes were enzymatically isolated from 1- to 3-day-old Sprague-Dawley rat ventricles. Effects of pioglitazone and the VEGFR-2-selective inhibitor apatinib on cardiomyocyte apoptotic rate was determined using flow cytometry, and hypertrophy was evaluated using [³H]-leucine incorporation. The protein expressions of unphosphorylated and phosphorylated VEGFR-2, Akt, P53, and mTOR were determined by Western-Blotting. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences between groups.

Results

Pioglitazone and VEGFR-2-selective inhibitor apatinib reduced rat cardiomyocyte viability and cardiomyocyte hypertrophy induced by angiotensin II in vitro. Furthermore, in the same in vitro model, pioglitazone and apatinib significantly increased the expression of Bax and phosphorylated P53 and decreased the expression of phosphorylated VEGFR-2, Akt, and mTOR, which promote cardiomyocyte hypertrophy.

Conclusions

These findings indicate that pioglitazone induces cardiomyocyte apoptosis and inhibits cardiomyocyte hypertrophy by modulating the VEGFR-2 signaling pathway.

Different Effects of Thiazolidinediones on In-Stent Restenosis and Target Lesion Revascularization after PCI: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the leading problem encountered after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) has been shown to be associated with reduced ISR and target lesion revascularization (TLR); however, the results are inconsistent, especially between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. In this study, fourteen RCTs with a total of 1350 patients were finally included through a systematical literature search of Embase, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 31, 2017. The follow-up duration of the included trials ranged from 6 months to 18 months. The results demonstrated that TZDs treatment is associated with significantly reduced risk of TLR (RR:0.45, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.67 for pioglitazone, RR:0.68, 95%CI 0.46 to 1.00 for rosiglitazone). Pioglitazone is associated with significantly reduced risks of ISR (RR:0.47, 95%CI 0.27 to 0.81), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR:0.44, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.64) and neointimal area (SMD: −0.585, 95%CI −0.910 to −0.261). No significant relationship was observed between rosiglitazone and ISR (RR:0.91, 95%CI 0.39 to 2.12), MACE (RR:0.73, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.00) and neointimal area (SMD: −0.164, 95%CI −1.146 to 0.818). This meta-analysis demonstrated that TZDs treatment is associated with significant reduction in ISR, TLR and MACE for patients after PCI. Pioglitazone treatment seems to have more beneficial effects than rosiglitazone and no significantly increased cardiovascular risk was detected for both agents.

Pioglitazone and the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Background and aims

Pioglitazone targets multiple pathogenic pathways involved in the development of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effects of pioglitazone treatment on the secondary prevention of CVD.

Methods

Randomized-controlled trials of pioglitazone in patients with CVD were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and CINAHL, in a search up to May 2016. Studies were included if pioglitazone was compared with any control (usual care, placebo or active comparator) and if patients were previously diagnosed with CVD. The outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF). All outcomes were compared by pooled risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model.

Results

Ten studies reported the effects of pioglitazone on any of the outcomes of interest. Pioglitazone reduced recurrent MACE (RR 0.74, 95% 0.60–0.92; I² = 35), MI (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64–0.93; I² = 0%), or stroke (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.96; I² = 0%). Pioglitazone did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81–1.08; I² = 0%), whereas pioglitazone treatment was associated with an increased risk of HF (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.14–1.54).

Conclusions

Pioglitazone lowers the risk of recurrent MACE, stroke, or MI in patients with clinical manifest vascular disease. Pioglitazone does not lower the risk for all-cause mortality, and increases the risk for the development of HF.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-017-0617-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Thiazolidinedione drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: past, present and future

Thiazolidinedione (TZD) drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have proven effective in improving insulin sensitivity, hyperglycemia, and lipid metabolism. Though well tolerated by some patients, their mechanism of action as ligands of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) results in the activation of several pathways in addition to those responsible for glycemic control and lipid homeostasis. These pathways, which include those related to inflammation, bone formation, and cell proliferation, may lead to adverse health outcomes. As treatment with TZDs has been associated with adverse hepatic, cardiovascular, osteological, and carcinogenic events in some studies, the role of TZDs in the treatment of T2DM continues to be debated. At the same time, new therapeutic roles for TZDs are being investigated, with new forms and isoforms currently in the pre-clinical phase for use in the prevention and treatment of some cancers, inflammatory diseases, and other conditions. The aims of this review are to provide an overview of the mechanism(s) of action of TZDs, a review of their safety for use in the treatment of T2DM, and a perspective on their current and future therapeutic roles.

Pioglitazone and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with insulin resistance, pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of pioglitazone in people with insulin resistance, pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Literature searches were performed across PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1966 to May 2016 to identify randomised, controlled trials with more than 1 year follow-up.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Relative risk (RR) with 95% CI was used to evaluate the association between pioglitazone and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and cardiovascular death) and safety outcomes, after pooling data across trials in a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine trials with 12 026 participants were enrolled in the current meta-analysis. Pioglitazone therapy was associated with a lower risk of MACE in patients with pre-diabetes or insulin resistance (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93), and diabetes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97). Risks of heart failure (RR 1.32; CI 1.14 to 1.54), bone fracture (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.99), oedema (RR, 1.63; CI 1.52 to 1.75) and weight gain (RR 1.60; CI 1.50 to 1.72) increased in pioglitazone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Pioglitazone was associated with reduced risk of MACE in people with insulin resistance, pre-diabetes and diabetes mellitus. However, the risks of heart failure, bone fracture, oedema and weight gain were increased.

Effect of Pioglitazone in Preventing In-Stent Restenosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of pioglitazone on prevention of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients with T2DM after PCI.

METHODS

All full-text published relevant studies compared the effect of pioglitazone with control group (placebo or no pioglitazone treatment) on ISR in patients with T2DM after PCI were identified by searching the databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science through October 2015. The endpoints were defined as the rate of ISR, late lumen loss, in-stent neointimal volume, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

Six studies (5 RCTs and 1 retrospective study), comprising 503 patients, were included into this meta-analysis. In the pioglitazone group, as compared with the control group, the risk ratio for ISR was 0.48 (I2 = 14.5%, P = 0.322; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.68, P<0.001), the risk ratio for TLR was 0.58 (I2 = 6.0%, P = 0.363; 95%CI 0.38 to 0.87, P = 0.009). The result showed there was no association between the use of pioglitazone and the events of MACE (I2 = 36.7%, P = 0.209; RR 0.56, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.05, P = 0.071). For the considerable heterogeneity, further analysis was not suitable for the endpoints of late lumen loss (I2 = 81.9%, P<0.001) and neointimal volume (I2 = 75.9%, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of pioglitazone was associated with a reduction in ISR and TLR in T2DM patients suffering from PCI, except the incidence of MACE.

Effect of pioglitazone on in-stent restenosis after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a common life-threatening complication and some studies have shown that pioglitazone can reduce the incidence of ISR in patients with drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of pioglitazone in preventing ISR after DES implantation.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of pioglitazone for ISR after DES implantation were identified by systematic searches of multiple online databases and manual searches of related reference lists of identified trials through May 2014. The primary endpoint was the rate of ISR. Secondary endpoints included minimum lumen diameter, percentage stenosis of stented vessels, late loss, in-stent neointimal volume, target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and death.

RESULTS

Five studies, comprising 255 pioglitazone-treated patients and 245 controls, were identified in the current meta-analysis. Pioglitazone did not significantly reduce the rate of ISR (P = 0.20) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 13.3%, P = 0.32). For the secondary outcomes, pioglitazone did not substantially affect the pooled estimates of these endpoints except late loss (P = 0.01) and TVR (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence indicates that pioglitazone does not demonstrate markedly beneficial effect in patients subjected to coronary DES implantation. However, the results should be interpreted with care given the small sample size. Further large-scale RCTs are needed.