Incidence of coronary stent thrombosis based on academic research consortium definitions

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Coronary Angiography-Guided Complex PCI: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Trials evaluating the role of intravascular imaging in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery disease have yielded mixed results. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of intravascular imaging specifically intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with those from conventional coronary angiography in complex PCI.

METHODS

Comprehensive electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed until March 2023 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing intravascular imaging with coronary angiography in patients undergoing complex PCI. Complex PCI was defined per each study, and included PCI for American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) type B2/C lesions, unprotected left main coronary artery disease, or multivessel stenting. The primary study outcome was major adverse clinical events (MACE).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 10 RCTs with a total of 6615 patients (3576 in the intravascular imaging group and 3039 in the coronary angiography group). The weighted mean-follow up was 28.9 months. Compared with coronary angiography, intravascular imaging reduced MACE (8% vs. 13.3%; relative risk [RR] 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.73), cardiac death (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.31-0.73), definite/probable stent thrombosis (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.24-0.97), target vessel revascularization (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.46-0.83), and target lesion revascularization (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.79). There was no difference between both groups in all-cause death (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.53-1.18) and myocardial infarction (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.61-1.04).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing complex PCI, intravascular imaging-specifically IVUS-reduced MACE by decreasing the incidence of cardiac death, stent thrombosis, and target vessel and target lesion revascularization.

Comparison of one-month versus twelve-month dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of drug-eluting stents guided by either intravascular ultrasound or angiography in patients with acute coronary syndrome: rationale and design of prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled IVUS-ACS and ULTIMATE-DAPT trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend administering dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months to patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and without contraindications after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. A recent study reported that 3 months of DAPT followed by ticagrelor monotherapy is effective and safe in ACS patients undergoing DES implantation compared with the standard duration of DAPT. However, it is unclear whether antiplatelet monotherapy with ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus aspirin reduces the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding without increasing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES implantation guided by either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or angiography who have completed a 1-month course of DAPT with aspirin plus ticagrelor.

METHODS

The IVUS-ACS and ULTIMATE-DAPT is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial designed to determine (1) whether IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided DES implantation in patients with ACS reduces the risk of target vessel failure (TVF) at 12 months and (2) whether ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus aspirin reduces the risk of clinically relevant bleeding without increasing the risk of MACCE 1-12 months after the index PCI in ACS patients undergoing DES implantation guided by either IVUS or angiography. This study will enroll 3486 ACS patients eligible for DES implantation, as confirmed by angiographic studies. The patients who meet the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to the IVUS- or angiography-guided group (first randomization). All enrolled patients will complete a 1-month course of DAPT with aspirin plus ticagrelor after the index PCI. Patients with no MACCEs or major bleeding (≥Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3b) within 30 days will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either the ticagrelor plus matching placebo (SAPT)group or ticagrelor plus aspirin (DAPT)group for an additional 11 months (second randomization). The primary endpoint of the IVUS-ACS trial is TVF at 12 months, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (CD-TVR). The primary superiority endpoint of the ULTIMATE-DAPT trial is clinically relevant bleeding, defined as BARC Types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, and the primary non-inferiority endpoint of the ULTIMATE-DAPT trial is MACCE, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, CD-TVR, or definite stent thrombosis occurring 1-12 months in the second randomized population.

CONCLUSION

The IVUS-ACS and ULTIMATE-DAPT trial is designed to test the efficacy and safety of 2 different antiplatelet strategies in ACS patients undergoing PCI with DES implantation guided by either IVUS or angiography. This study will provide novel insights into the optimal DAPT duration in ACS patients undergoing PCI and provide evidence on the clinical benefits of IVUS-guided PCI in ACS patients.

Dual therapy with an oral non-vitamin K antagonist and a P2Y12 inhibitor vs triple therapy with aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor and a vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of diabetes mellitus patients with co-existing atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In this analysis, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of dual therapy (DT) with a non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC) and an adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist (P2Y12 inhibitor) vs triple therapy (TT) with aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor and a vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with co-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, Excerpta Medical data BASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar were the searched databases. Studies that were randomized trials or observational studies comparing DT vs TT for the treatment of DM patients with co-existing AF following PCI were included in this analysis. The adverse cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events were the endpoints. This meta-analysis was carried out by the RevMan version 5.4 software. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent data and interpret the analysis.

RESULTS

A total number of 4970 participants were included whereby 2456 participants were assigned to the DT group and 2514 participants were assigned to the TT group. The enrollment period varied from year 2006 to year 2018. Our current results showed that major adverse cardiac events (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.84-1.20; P = .98), mortality (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.78-1.48; P = .66), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.74-1.42; P = .90), stroke (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.53-1.67; P = .84) and stent thrombosis (RR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.56-2.10; P = .80) were similar with DT versus TT in these patients. However, the risks for total major bleeding (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82; P = .0001), total minor bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64-0.85; P = .0001), Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) defined major bleeding (RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.35-0.95; P = .03), TIMI defined minor bleeding (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.92; P = .02), intra-cranial bleeding (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13-0.95; P = .04) and major bleeding defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51-0.90; P = .008) were significantly higher with TT.

CONCLUSIONS

DT with a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with significantly less bleeding events without increasing the adverse cardiovascular outcomes when compared to TT with aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor and a Vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of DM patients with co-existing AF following PCI. Hence, DT is comparable in efficacy, but safer compared to TT. This interesting hypothesis will have to be confirmed in future studies.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the Use of a Telemedicine App Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Center in Beijing, China, from August 2019 to March 2020

BACKGROUND The efficacy of telemedicine in reducing delay times and short-term adverse clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unclear. This study compared outcomes in patients with STEMI who had percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the use of a telemedicine app from August 2019 to March 2020 at a single center in Beijing, China. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 243 patients with STEMI who underwent PCI were consecutively enrolled and divided into 2 groups according to the date, before or after the pandemic. The 2 groups were further divided into patients who used the app for consulting and those who did not. RESULTS The time from symptom onset to calling an ambulance (SCT), door to balloon time (DTB), and total ischemia time (TIT) were significantly prolonged in patients after the pandemic. Patients who used the app had shorter SCT, DTB, and TIT before and after the pandemic compared to those who did not. Adverse clinical outcomes were significantly higher after compared with before the pandemic, despite the incidence rate of stroke, any revascularization, and stent thrombosis. However, there was no significant difference in short-term adverse clinical outcomes between patients who used the app and those who did not before and after the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS Telemedicine reduced the delay time of STEMI patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The difference in short-term adverse clinical outcomes was not statistically significant between patients who used the app and those who did not.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents incorporating real-world evidence

AIM

Compared with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES), the cost-effectiveness of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) remains unclear in the real-world setting. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES to DP-DES over 1 year and 5 years from healthcare payer perspective. Relative treatment effects during the first year post-PCI were obtained from a real-world population analysis while clinical event risks in the subsequent 4 years were derived from a meta-analysis of published studies.

RESULTS

At 1 year, based on the clinical data analysis of 497 propensity-score matched pairs of patients, BP-DES were associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD20 503 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. At 5 years, BP-DES yielded an ICER of USD4062 per QALY gained. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of USD50 400 (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015), BP-DES were cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES. Threshold analysis demonstrated that if the cost difference between BP-DES and DP-DES exceeded USD493, BP-DES would not be cost-effective in patients with 1 year of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were cost-effective compared with DP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease at 1 year and 5 years after PCI. It is worth noting that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the findings.

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) are associated with an excess of thrombotic complications compared with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the comparative effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved BVS versus metallic EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at longest available follow-up.

METHODS

The authors searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and web sources for randomized trials comparing BVS and EES. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion failure and definite or probable stent thrombosis, respectively.

RESULTS

Seven trials were included: in sum, 5,583 patients were randomized to receive either the study BVS (n = 3,261) or the EES (n = 2,322). Median time of follow-up was 2 years (range 2 to 3 years). Compared with metallic EES, risk of target lesion failure (9.6% vs. 7.2%; absolute risk difference: +2.4%; risk ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.59; number needed to harm: 41; p = 0.003; I² = 0%) and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 0.7%; absolute risk difference: +1.7%; risk ratio: 3.15; 95% confidence interval: 1.87 to 5.30; number needed to harm: 60; p < 0.0001; I² = 0%) were both significantly higher with BVS. There were no significant differences in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality between groups. The increased risk for ST associated with BVS was concordant across the early (<30 days), late (30 days to 1 year), and very late (>1 year) periods (p_interaction = 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with metallic EES, the BVS appears to be associated with both lower efficacy and higher thrombotic risk over time. (Bioresorbable vascular scaffold compare to everolimus stents in long term follow up; CRD42017059993).

Triple antithrombotic therapy is the independent predictor for the occurrence of major bleeding complications: analysis of percent time in therapeutic range

BACKGROUND

Triple antithrombotic therapy increases the risk of bleeding events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, it remains unclear whether good control of percent time in therapeutic range is associated with reduced occurrence of bleeding complications in patients undergoing triple antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study included 2648 patients (70 ± 11 years; 2037 men) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with stent in the Ibaraki Cardiovascular Assessment Study registry and received dual antiplatelet therapy with or without warfarin. Clinical end points were defined as the occurrence of major bleeding complications (MBC), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event, and all-cause death. Among these 2648 patients, 182 (7%) patients received warfarin. After a median follow-up period of 25 months (interquartile range, 15-35 months), MBC had occurred in 48 (2%) patients, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event in 484 (18%) patients, and all-cause death in 206 (8%) patients. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that triple antithrombotic therapy was the independent predictor for the occurrence of MBC (hazard ratio, 7.25; 95% confidence interval, 3.05-17.21; P<0.001). The time in therapeutic range value did not differ between the patients with and without MBC occurrence (83% [interquartile range, 50%-90%] versus 75% [interquartile range, 58%-87%]; P=0.7). However, the mean international normalized ratio of prothrombin time at the time of MBC occurrence was 3.3 ± 2.1. Triple antithrombotic therapy did not have a predictive value for the occurrence of all-cause death (P=0.1) and stroke (P=0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Triple antithrombotic therapy predisposes patients to an increased risk of MBC regardless of the time in therapeutic range.

Phenotyping vs. genotyping for prediction of clopidogrel efficacy and safety: the PEGASUS-PCI study

BACKGROUND

Prognostic values of genotyping and phenotyping for assessment of clopidogrel responsiveness have been shown in independent studies.

OBJECTIVES

To compare different assays for prediction of events during long-term follow-up.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study polymorphisms of CYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*17 alleles, vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation (VASP) assay, multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA), cone and platelet analyser (CPA) and platelet function analyser (PFA-100) were performed in 416 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The rates of events were recorded during a 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Platelet aggregation by MEA predicted stent thrombosis (2.4%) better (c-index = 0.90; P < 0.001; sensitivity = 90%; specificity = 83%) than the VASP assay, CPA or PFA-100 (c-index < 0.70; P > 0.05; sensitivity < 70%; specificity < 70% for all) or even the CYP2C19*2 polymorphism (c-index < 0.56; P > 0.05; sensitivity = 30%; specificity = 71%). Survival analysis indicated that patients classified as poor responders by MEA had a substantially higher risk of developing stent thrombosis or MACE than clopidogrel responders (12.5% vs. 0.3%, P < 0.001, and 18.5% vs. 11.3%, P = 0.022, respectively), whereas poor metabolizers (CYP2C19*1/*2 or *2/*2 carriers) were not at increased risks (stent thrombosis, 2.7% vs. 2.5%, P > 0.05; MACE, 13.5% vs. 12.1%, P = 0.556). The incidence of major bleedings (2.6%) was numerically higher in patients with an enhanced vs. poor response to clopidogrel assessed by MEA (4% vs. 0%) or in ultra-metabolizers vs. regular metabolizers (CYP2C19*17/*17 vs. CYP2C19*1/*1; 9.5% vs. 2%). The classification tree analysis demonstrated that acute coronary syndrome at hospitalization and diabetes mellitus were the best discriminators for clopidogrel responder status.

CONCLUSIONS

 Phenotyping of platelet response to clopidogrel was a better predictor of stent thrombosis than genotyping.

Paraoxonase 1 (PON1) gene variants are not associated with clopidogrel response

A common functional variant in paraoxonase 1 (PON1), Q192R, was recently reported to be a major determinant of clopidogrel response. This variant was genotyped in 566 participants of the Amish Pharmacogenomics of Anti-Platelet Intervention (PAPI) study and in 227 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients. Serum paraoxonase activity was measured in a subset of 79 PAPI participants. PON1 Q192R was not associated with pre- or post-clopidogrel platelet aggregation in the PAPI study (P = 0.16 and P = 0.21, respectively) or the PCI cohort (P = 0.47 and P = 0.91, respectively). The Q192 allele was not associated with cardiovascular events (hazard ratio (HR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-1.06; P = 0.07). No correlation was observed between paraoxonase activity and post-clopidogrel platelet aggregation (r(2) < 0.01, P = 0.78). None of 49 additional PON1 variants evaluated was associated with post-clopidogrel platelet aggregation. These findings do not support a role for PON1 as a determinant of clopidogrel response.

Potential difficulty for accurate categorization of drug-eluting stent thrombosis without coronary angiography: unignorable involvement of the cases with new onset acute myocardial infarction occurred in target vessels

Very late stent thrombosis (VLST) is a major unresolved problem of drug-eluting stent (DES) implants. However, its actual incidence with respect to the distribution of DES-target vessel and accuracy of adjudicating stent thrombosis according to the ARC definition has not been yet adequately evaluated. We studied 720 patients who had completed over 1 year from elective DES implantation. In this cohort, we extracted patients who present acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n = 3, 0.4%). The timing of ACS events was 17, 19, and 24 months after DES implantation. At the time of presentation, VLST was strongly suspected as the initial diagnosis, however, coronary angiography (CAG) confirmed the different culprit lesion from DES and clearly no thrombus within the DES. According to ARC definition, three probable stent thromboses in this cohort before CAG, however, no stent thrombosis was confirmed after the CAG. Thus, no stent thrombosis was confirmed among this study population. In the very late phase after DES implantation, new onset ACS is not at all extraordinary occurrence in the target vessels of previous DES implantation. However, stent thrombosis is often assumed without angiographic confirmation. The clinical possibility that non-stent thrombosis is incidentally diagnosed with stent thrombosis without angiographic confirmation should be considered within the current accepted definition of stent thrombosis.

Preventing serious sequelae after an acute coronary syndrome: the consequences of thrombosis versus bleeding with antiplatelet therapy

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is associated with a persistent prothrombotic state, placing patients at high risk of subsequent ischemic events. Guidelines recommend the use of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin + a thienopyridine (clopidogrel) for at least a year after ACS in most patients, except those who undergo coronary artery bypass grafting. Clinical studies demonstrate that this strategy significantly reduces the risk of ischemic events at the expense of a small increase in the risk of bleeding. Physicians must balance the risk of bleeding against the benefit of ischemia prevention, bearing in mind that ischemic events are generally more common than major bleeding and often associated with more catastrophic consequences or ongoing morbidity. The relationship between bleeding and mortality is complicated by the fact that many risk factors for bleeding are also those for mortality and that bleeding may lead to discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy, thereby increasing the risk for an ischemic event. Data suggest that physicians tend to overestimate the risk of bleeding and underestimate the risk of ischemia. Careful patient selection and thorough patient education are the keys to managing antiplatelet therapy after ACS, especially as newer more potent antiplatelet agents, such as prasugrel, become available.

Multiple electrode aggregometry predicts stent thrombosis better than the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assay

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The prognostic value of the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) phosphorylation assay and multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA) for thrombotic adverse events has been shown in independent studies. As no direct comparison between the two methods has been made so far, we investigated which laboratory approach has a better predictive value for stent thrombosis.

METHODS

The VASP phosphorylation assay and MEA were performed in 416 patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The rate of stent thrombosis was recorded during a 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Definite stent thrombosis occurred in three patients (0.7%) and probable stent thrombosis in four (1%). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated that MEA distinguishes between patients with or without subsequent stent thrombosis better than the VASP phosphorylation assay: the area under the ROC curve was higher for MEA (0.92; P=0.012) than for the VASP phosphorylation assay (0.60; P=0.55). At equal levels of sensitivity (100%), the specificity was greater for MEA than for the VASP phosphorylation assay (86% vs. 37%). Stent thrombosis occurred in 9% of patients with platelet hyperreactivity in MEA, who were simultaneously clopidogrel non-responders in the VASP phosphorylation assay. Interestingly, clopidogrel non-responders in the VASP phosphorylation assay without platelet hyperreactivity in MEA did not suffer from stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Platelet hyperreactivity in MEA might be a better risk predictor for stent thrombosis than the assessment of the specific clopidogrel effect with the VASP phosphorylation assay.

Association of cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype with the antiplatelet effect and clinical efficacy of clopidogrel therapy

CONTEXT

Clopidogrel therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes and following percutaneous coronary intervention by inhibiting adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-dependent platelet activation. However, nonresponsiveness is widely recognized and is related to recurrent ischemic events.

OBJECTIVE

To identify gene variants that influence clopidogrel response.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In the Pharmacogenomics of Antiplatelet Intervention (PAPI) Study (2006-2008), we administered clopidogrel for 7 days to 429 healthy Amish persons and measured response by ex vivo platelet aggregometry. A genome-wide association study was performed followed by genotyping the loss-of-function cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19*2 variant (rs4244285). Findings in the PAPI Study were extended by examining the relation of CYP2C19*2 genotype to platelet function and cardiovascular outcomes in an independent sample of 227 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

ADP-stimulated platelet aggregation in response to clopidogrel treatment and cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Platelet response to clopidogrel was highly heritable (h(2) = 0.73; P < .001). Thirteen single-nucleotide polymorphisms on chromosome 10q24 within the CYP2C18-CYP2C19-CYP2C9-CYP2C8 cluster were associated with diminished clopidogrel response, with a high degree of statistical significance (P = 1.5 x 10(-13) for rs12777823, additive model). The rs12777823 polymorphism was in strong linkage disequilibrium with the CYP2C19*2 variant, and was associated with diminished clopidogrel response, accounting for 12% of the variation in platelet aggregation to ADP (P = 4.3 x 10(-11)). The relation between CYP2C19*2 genotype and platelet aggregation was replicated in clopidogrel-treated patients undergoing coronary intervention (P = .02). Furthermore, patients with the CYP2C19*2 variant were more likely (20.9% vs 10.0%) to have a cardiovascular ischemic event or death during 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-4.99; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

CYP2C19*2 genotype was associated with diminished platelet response to clopidogrel treatment and poorer cardiovascular outcomes.

Comparison of medium-term outcomes obtained with drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafts in an unselected population of diabetic patients with multivessel coronary disease. Propensity score analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Since the introduction of drug-eluting stents, the optimum revascularization strategy in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary disease has remained controversial.

METHODS

This study used multivariate logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching to compare results in 270 consecutive diabetic patients (2000-2004) with multivessel disease (> or =2 vessels with a >70% de novo stenosis involving the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery) who underwent either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; n=142) or implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES; i.e. rapamycin or paclitaxel; n=128). The following clinical outcomes (i.e. major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events [MACCEs]) were assessed: death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and repeat revascularization at 2 years.

RESULTS

Patients who received DESs were older (67.5+/-7 years vs. 65.3+/-8 years; P=.05) and more often had a previous MI (49.2% vs. 28.2%; P< .01), but no more often had a depressed left ventricular ejection fraction < or =45% (32.4% vs. 28.1%). Coronary anatomy was more complex in surgical patients (SYNTAX score, 25.9+/-7 vs. 18.5+/-6; P< .001) and the quality of revascularization was better (i.e. anatomically complete revascularization: 52.8% vs. 28.1%; P< .01). The incidence of MACCEs was 18.7% in the CABG group and 21.8% in the DES group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-1.86). The composite endpoint of death, MI or stroke occurred in 15.8% undergoing CABG and 12.9% receiving a DES (adjusted OR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.72-1.88). There was less need for revascularization in CABG patients (4.3% vs. 12.1%; adjusted OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.16-1.14; P=.09).

CONCLUSIONS

In an unselected population of diabetic patients with multivessel coronary disease, the principle advantage of CABG was the reduced need for revascularization. There was no difference in the rate of death, MI or stroke.