Aims SGLT-2 Inhibitor is an anti-diabetic drug. SGLT-2 Inhibitor has favourably effect in cardiovascular outcomes. However, the three-year cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT-2 Inhibitor in Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus remains unclear. We performed meta-analysis to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes in three-years of SGLT-2 Inhibitor therapy. Methods We performed a systematic literature search from various electronic databases. We used keywords “SGLT-2 Inhibitor”, “Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus”, and “Cardiovascular outcome”. Inclusion criteria for research is Randomized Control Trial and 3-year follow-up. Primary endpoint is Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event (MACE). Secondary endpoints are all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization of heart failure. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval were used to report all outcomes. Results Total of two Randomized Control Trial was selected (EMPA-REG [Jardiance®] and VERTIS-CV [Steglatro®] trial) with 15.266 patients pooled in our analysis. Results of three-year primary outcome compared SGLT-2 Inhibitor with Placebo had no significant reduction in MACE (RR = 0.93 [95% CI, 0.81–1.07], p = 0.32; I2=56%). Result of secondary outcome showed no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.80 [95% CI, 0.60-1.08], p = 0.15; I2=85%) and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.77 [95% CI, 0.52–1.12], p = 0.17; I2=87%). However, there are significant reduction in hospitalization of heart failure (RR = 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57–0.82], p < 0.00001; I2=0%). Conclusion SGLT-2 Inhibitor in Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus has significant reduction in hospitalization of heart failure. However, no significant results were found in MACE, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality after 3-year follow-up.

Aims SGLT-2 Inhibitor is an anti-hyperglycaemic drug. SGLT-2 Inhibitor has favourably affect in Cardiovascular outcome. Nevertheless, the cardiovascular outcome of recent clinical trial of SGLT-2 Inhibitor in Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus remains unclear. We performed meta-analysis to evaluate SGLT-2 Inhibitor in type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. Methods We performed a systematic literature search from various electronic databases. We used keywords “SGLT-2 inhibitor”, “Cardiovascular outcome”, and “Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus”. Inclusion criteria is Randomized Control Trial and 2 to 4-year follow-up. Primary endpoint is Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event (MACE). Secondary endpoints are all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization of heart failure. Outcomes is reported using Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval. Results Total of four Randomized Control Trial was selected (EMPA-REG [Jardiance®], CANVAS [Invokana®], DECLARE-TIMI 58 [Forxiga®] and VERTIS-CV [Steglatro®] trial) with 42.568 patients pooled within our analysis. The results of primary outcome compared SGLT-2 Inhibitor with Placebo had significant reduction in MACE (RR = 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87–0.99], p = 0.03; I2=0%). Result of secondary outcomes showed significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75–0.99], p = 0.03; I2=65%) and hospitalization of heart failure (RR = 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63–0.80], p < 0.00001; I2=0%), however, no significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.69–1.05], p = 0.13; I2=73%). Conclusion SGLT-2 Inhibitor in Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus has significant reduction in MACE, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization of heart failure. However, no significant reduction was found in cardiovascular mortality within 2 to 4-year follow-up.

Introduction Late stent thrombosis and restenosis remain major drawbacks of Drug-Eluting Stent (DES). Therefore, Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) were created to combat these disadvantages. However, the long-term outcome of BVS versus DES for treating coronary artery disease remains inconclusive.  Method We performed an orderly literature search from several electronic databases. We used the keyword “bioresorbable vascular scaffold” and “drug-eluting stent”. The inclusion criteria were comparing BVS and DES, Randomized Control Trial (RCT), and reported 5-year follow-up. The primary endpoints were cardiac death and stent thrombosis. Secondary endpoints were ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization (ID–TLR) and target lesion failure (TLF) as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or ID–TLR. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to report all outcomes. Results A total of 3 RCT were selected (ABSORB II, ABSORB III, and ABSORB JAPAN) with 2.890 patients were pooled in our analysis. At five years, compared to DES, BVS had no significant difference in cardiac death (RR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.50-1.32], p = 0.40). However, BVS had higher risk of stent thrombosis (RR = 2.74 [95% CI, 1.38-5.46], p = 0.004), ID–TLR (RR = 1.38 [95% CI, 1.04-1.84], p = 0.03) and TLF (RR = 1.26 [95% CI, 1.03-1.54], p = 0.02).   Conclusions Comparing to DES, BVS has a significantly greater risk of stent thrombosis, ID–TLR, and TLF after five years of follow-up.