Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass graft surgery for diabetic patients with unstable angina and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: outcome of diabetic patients in the AWESOME randomized trial and registry

Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity-Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

Patients with diabetes have poorer outcomes with coronary artery disease (CAD) and pose a unique clinical population for revascularization. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched observational studies (PMS) to compare the clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify RCT and PMS studies comparing CABG with PCI in patients with diabetes with concurrent CAD. Studies were pooled using the random-effects model to perform a pairwise meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included long-term all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and repeat revascularization. Meta-regression was used to explore the effects of baseline risk factors on primary outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs and 9 PMS with 28,846 patients were included. PCI was associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.34, P < 0.001), cardiac mortality (RR = 1.52, P < 0.001), MI (RR = 1.51, P = 0.009), MACCE (RR = 1.65, P < 0.001), and repeat revascularization (RR = 2.48, P < 0.001) compared with CABG. There was no difference in long-term stroke between the 2 groups (RR = 0.95, P = 0.82). At meta-regression, a greater proportion of female patients in studies was associated with a decreased protective benefit for CABG for long-term all-cause mortality but an increased protective benefit for long-term MI and repeat revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Revascularization of patients with diabetes using CABG is associated with significantly reduced long-term mortality, MI, MACCE, and repeat revascularizations. Future studies exploring the influence of gender on revascularization outcomes are necessary to elucidate the ideal treatment modality in patients with diabetes.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Comparison of invasive treatment strategies in patients with non–ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the mortality associated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with non–ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

Methods

We searched publications from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception until December 23, 2020. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing all-cause mortality after treatment with CABG versus PCI for patients with NSTE-ACS with minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) differences from RCTs and adjusted RMST differences from observational studies were computed by reconstructing time-to-event data from published Kaplan–Meier curves. Extracted hazard ratios (HRs) were also assessed as a secondary analysis.

Results

Our systematic review included an individual participant data analysis of 3 RCTs and 8 observational studies. A meta-regression showed a significant association between log-transformed HRs and duration of follow-up (−0.009 [95% confidence interval (CI), −0.002 to −0.016] log-HR per 1-year longer follow-up; P = .037), suggesting a violation of the proportional hazard assumption. Analysis of 6 studies with available RMST data showed a significant inverse association between adjusted RMST differences and cutoff years (slope, −0.028 [95% CI, −0.042 to −0.013] year difference per 1-year longer cutoff; P < .005), suggesting a longer survival benefit in the CABG arm compared with the PCI arm with longer follow-up.

Conclusions

There was a trend toward a benefit of CABG compared with PCI in the longer follow-up in patients with NSTE-ACS. A large, well-designed RCT with longer follow-up is needed to obtain definitive evidence on this topic.

Clinical practice patterns in revascularization of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease: nationwide register study

Aims: To compare diabetic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) needing revascularization to corresponding non-diabetic patients in terms of revascularization methods, comorbidities and urgency of procedure. We also examined the impact of patient characteristics and comorbidities on the revascularization method.Methods: We identified all diabetic (n = 33,018) and non-diabetic (n = 106,224) patients with first-ever, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from electronic health records in Finland between 2000 and 2015.Results: Overall, PCI was the most common revascularization method. PCI outnumbered CABG in women and men both in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. However, diabetic patients were more likely to undergo CABG than PCI (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.27-1.34, adjusted for age, gender, region of residence and procedure year). Moreover, 26.9% of diabetic patients' urgent procedures were CABG compared to 21.6% in non-diabetic patients (p<.001). Among diabetic patients, prior myocardial infarction was associated with increased odds of CABG, whereas female gender, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, hypertension and later procedure year were associated with lower odds of CABG.Conclusions: CABG has been performed more frequently in diabetic than in non-diabetic CHD patients. Nevertheless, PCI was the dominant revascularization method over CABG both in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. KEY MESSAGESPCI was the dominant revascularization method in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Diabetic patients were more likely to undergo CABG than PCI when compared to non-diabetic patients (OR: 1.30; CI 1.27-1.34).Diabetic patients underwent urgent CABG procedures more often than non-diabetic patients and had more comorbidities compared to non-diabetic patients.

Influence of Prior Coronary Stenting on the Immediate and Mid-term Outcome of Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Background

There has been little emphasis on the possible consequences of prior stent placement on the outcome of coronary bypass surgery (CABG). We compared the results of isolated CABG patients who had prior stents with those who had not with respect to preoperative status, operative procedure, and postoperative immediate and long-term outcome.

Methods

Records of 1471 patients undergoing isolated CABG at our institution between January 1, 2000, and March 31, 2005, were reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups. Group I had no stents (n = 1317). Group II had one to three stents (n = 137). Group III had more than three stents (n = 17). Groups were compared with respect to preoperative risk factors, operative procedures, and postoperative results. Long-term survival data were obtained on 97.6% of patients with a mean follow-up, 4.1 ± 2.3 years.

Results

Stented patients were younger (66.1 ± 10.8 vs. 69.1 ± 10.8 years, P = 0.006), had more unstable angina (68.2% vs. 58.9%, P = 0.02), hypercholesterolemia (83.8% vs. 61.2%, P = 0.00), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (13.6% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.03), peripheral vascular disease (15.2% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.00), and previous CABG (10.1% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.00), fewer low ejection fractions (1.3% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.02), left main disease (25.3% vs. 32.6%, P = 0.04), diabetes (31.2% vs. 40.8%, P = 0.01), or diffuse disease (19.5 ± 10.5 vs. 22.5 ± 10.9, P = 0.00), had more off pump procedures (53.2% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.03), fewer internal thoracic artery grafts (80.5% vs. 86.6%, P = 0.03), fewer grafts placed (>3: 52.6% vs. 61.8%, P = 0.02), more complications (76.5% vs. 42.6%, P = 0.005), atrial fibrillation (47.1% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.011), longer hospital stays (12.2 vs. 8.3 days, P = 0.019). Percentage survival for groups I, II, and III at 60 months was 82.1%, 84.7%, and 72.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

Stents placed before surgery in isolated CABG patients may be associated with higher preoperative risk, altered operative procedures, more postoperative complications, longer hospitalizations, and more readmissions. Overall, stented patients experienced more preoperative hospitalizations, catheterizations, and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) than nonstented patients. Survival for those with more than three stents may be diminished.

The Surgical Treatment of Coronary Artery Occlusive Disease: Modern Treatment Strategies for an Age Old Problem

Coronary artery disease remains a formidable challenge to clinicians. Percutaneous interventions and surgical techniques for myocardial revascularization continue to improve. Concurrently, in light of emerging data, multiple practice guidelines have been published guiding clinicians in their therapeutic decisions. The multidisciplinary Heart Team concept needs to be embraced by all cardiovascular providers to optimize patient outcomes.

Can the onset of heart failure be delayed by treating diabetic cardiomyopathy?

The pathophysiology of diabetic cardiomyopathy (DC) is not fully understood. This frequently undiagnosed complication of chronic hyperglycemia leads to heart failure (HF). However, it is suggested that an appropriate metabolic control of diabetes at an early stage of this deleterious disease, is able to inhibit the development and progression of DC to HF. Recently, it has been postulated that myocardial ischaemia plays an important role in the development of this pathology. Results of the antianginal pharmacological treatment and revascularization are unsatisfactory and reveal a gap in our knowledge and current approaches to treating DC. Most recent studies emphasize the ischaemic component of DC as a key target for therapeutic strategies, which could change its unfavorable history. More stress is put on an early diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD), promoting prompt revascularization. Choosing the accurate time of surgical revascularization, with the inclusion of the metabolic background, can ensure complete revascularization with better prognosis. This review will focus on the complexity of DC and summarize contemporary knowledge of treatment strategies for patients with diabetes and CAD.

Outcomes of DES in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients with Complex Coronary Artery Disease after Risk Stratification by the SYNTAX Score

Diabetes mellitus (DM) increases the risk of adverse outcomes after coronary revascularization. Controversy persists regarding the optimal revascularization strategy for diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD).

Myocardial Revascularization for Patients With Diabetes: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

Patients affected by diabetes usually have extensive coronary artery disease. Coronary revascularization has a prominent role in the treatment of coronary artery disease in the expanding diabetic population. However, diabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention experience worse outcomes than nondiabetic patients. Several studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention in subgroups of diabetic patients demonstrated a survival advantage and fewer repeat revascularization procedures with an initial surgical strategy. This review summarizes the current state of evidence comparing the effectiveness and safety of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic patients.

Has the difference in mortality between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting in people with heart disease and diabetes changed over the years? A systematic review and meta-regression

OBJECTIVES

To examine the difference in outcome between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), to see if it has changed over the years in diabetics deemed eligible for both treatments; and to contrast the long-term mortality findings with those in non-diabetics.

DESIGN

Meta-analyses using data from randomised controlled trials found by searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, from their inception until March 2015.

SETTING

Studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing PCI with CABG.

PARTICIPANTS

Those taking part in the studies had to have multivessel cardiac or left main artery cardiac disease and be deemed eligible for both treatments.

INTERVENTIONS

PCI or CABG.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were a composite of mortality, stroke and myocardial infarction; cardiovascular death; and MACCE (Major Adverse Cardiac or Cerebrovascular Event). The longest follow-up was used in the analysis.

RESULTS

Among 14 studies (4868 diabetics) reported over three decades, meta-regression shows no relationship between the year of publication and the difference in long term all cause mortality between PCI and CABG. CABG has maintained an approximately 30% mortality advantage compared to PCI. The other outcomes used showed the same lack of change over the years. These findings held true among insulin-requiring and non-insulin-requiring diabetics. However, among non-diabetics included in the 14 studies, there was no difference in mortality outcome between PCI and CABG.

CONCLUSIONS

The difference in outcome between PCI and CABG in diabetics has not narrowed from the beginning-with balloon angioplasty to current PCI-with the second generation of drug eluting stents. In contrast to the non-diabetics, there is a persistent 30% benefit in all cause mortality favouring CABG in diabetics, and this should be a major factor in treatment recommendation.

Comparison of coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes

OPINION STATEMENT

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with diabetes is controversial. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) trial, done more than a decade ago, suggested a mortality benefit of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (with plain old balloon angioplasty) in the subgroup of patients with diabetes. In addition, several observational studies and meta-analyses similarly suggest a benefit of CABG over PCI in patients with diabetes. However, most of these studies compared CABG with PCI using balloon angioplasty, bare metal stents, or first-generation drug-eluting stents. In this review, we critically examine the data for optimal revascularization strategy in patients with diabetes and ask the question whether the currently available data from randomized trials that used outdated stents are applicable to current day practice.

Percutaneous coronary invervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with coronary artery disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched, and randomized controlled trials were included. Outcomes were assessed at maximum available follow-up.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis includes 31 trials with 15,004 patients. As regards death, more patients died after PCI compared with CABG across all types of patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.3; P = .05) as well as in patients with multivessel disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) or diabetes (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1; P < .01). Myocardial infarction occurred as frequently after PCI (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = .28). Repeat revascularization was more common after PCI (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.5-5.8; P < .01), with a progressive decline in ORs from the pre-stent era (OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 5.1-9.7; P < .01), to the bare metal stent era (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.6-5.5; P < .01), and to the drug-eluting stent era (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.4; P < .01). Stroke was more common after CABG (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PCI, CABG had a lower risk of death in multivessel disease or diabetes patients eligible for either intervention, a lower risk of repeat revascularization, but a higher risk of stroke.

Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease.

DESIGN

Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

All cause mortality.

RESULTS

100 trials in 93,553 patients with 262,090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

Interventions for coronary artery disease (surgery vs angioplasty) in diabetic patients

Patients with diabetes develop more widespread and more severe atherosclerotic coronary artery disease than patients without diabetes. Medical management of this coronary disease is inferior to revascularization for more complex or more widespread disease. Revascularization by percutaneous intervention (PCI) for patients with diabetes is associated with high mortality and complication rates. Surgical revascularization by coronary artery bypass grafting, yields superior results to PCI for patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease. Patients with diabetes benefit from the same medical management of their coronary artery disease and secondary risk modification as patients without diabetes.

Percutaneous revascularization and long term clinical outcomes of diabetic patients randomized in the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT)

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of a persistently totally occluded infarct-related artery (IRA) in stable high-risk patients >24h after myocardial infarction (MI) does not reduce the occurrence of death, re-infarction, or heart failure. Diabetic patients are at higher risk for cardiovascular events; we examined their outcomes overall with PCI and optimal medical therapy alone (MED).

METHODS

The long-term (7-year) outcomes of 454 diabetic patients (20.6%) randomized to PCI or MED in the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) were assessed for the composite primary endpoint of death, re-MI, or New York Heart Association class IV heart failure. Diabetics and non-diabetics were compared and outcomes assessed by treatment strategy.

RESULTS

The 7-year cumulative primary event rate for diabetic patients was 35.0% vs. 19.4% in the non-diabetic cohort (p<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed diabetes to be an independent predictor (p<0.01) for the primary outcome, fatal or nonfatal recurrent MI, Class IV Heart Failure (HF), and death. The 7-year cumulative primary event rates were 35.3% in the PCI group vs. 34.5% in the medical therapy group in diabetic patients (p=0.19) and 19.3% in the PCI group vs. 19.5% in the medical therapy group in patients without diabetes (p=0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the higher overall risk conferred by the presence of diabetes, PCI did not improve clinical outcomes in this subpopulation, and is not indicated in otherwise stable patients with a totally occluded infarct-related artery in the sub-acute phase after MI.

CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM DISORDERS AND CORONARY HEART DISEASE: PROGNOSTIC VALUE AND REVASCULARISATION EFFECTIVENESS

This literature review presents the data on the prevalence and prognostic value of carbohydrate metabolism disorders, such as Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and pre-diabetes — fasting hyperglycaemia and impaired glucose tolerance), among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). The authors present the results of large studies on comparative effectiveness of modern pharmacological treatment and myocardial revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery) in patients with CHD and DM. 

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the treatment of diabetic patients with multi-vessel coronary disease: a meta-analysis

Diabetes is prevalent in patients with coronary artery disease. In diabetic patients with multi-vessel coronary disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are widely used for revascularization. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of PCI and CABG in these patients. Nine randomized controlled trials were identified in which a total of 1047 diabetic patients were randomly assigned to PCI and 1054 to CABG. Results showed that five-year mortality was significantly higher in diabetic patients after PCI than after CABG (risk difference (RD) of 7%; P<0.001); repeated revascularization was more common after PCI than after CABG (one-year RD of 13%; P<0.001); major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were also more frequent after PCI (one-year RD of 12%; P<0.001); however, the cerebrovascular accident rate was lower in the PCI group than the CABG group (one-year RD of -2%; P=0.004). Conclusively, in diabetic patients with multi-vessel coronary disease, CABG was not only more effective than PCI in reducing mortality but also led to fewer repeated revascularizations and fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Despite these benefits, CABG did put diabetic patients at higher risk for cerebrovascular accident than PCI.

Diabetes mellitus and acute coronary syndrome: lessons from randomized clinical trials

Diabetes mellitus is a major independent risk factor for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In addition, diabetic patients with ACS suffer from increased mortality compared to their nondiabetic peers. Driven by multiple pathophysiological disturbances, such patients are predisposed to a proinflammatory, prothrombotic state, which may lead to plaque rupture. To counteract this more complex biology, several therapies and strategies have emerged, with some having unique preferential benefits in this population. Antiplatelet agents such as aspirin and clopidogrel have long been standard of care. Dose adjustment of these therapies remains the subject of continued research. Along with medical therapy, ACS diabetic patients preferentially benefit from primary percutaneous intervention compared to fibrinolysis. However, with advances in reperfusion techniques, the optimal strategy has yet to be determined. With these differences in ACS treatment responses, diabetic individuals may not just be a high-risk group, but may actually constitute a fundamentally different population, requiring dedicated clinical trials and individualized treatment regimens.

Joint ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization

The Guidelines for Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) are the very first reported consensus document, by a writing committee balanced between non-interventional and interventional cardiologists as well as cardiac surgeons, on this specific issue. Given the strong impact that ischaemic heart disease has on the survival and quality of life of the individual as well as the economic implications for society, the importance of the ESC/EACTS guidelines is obvious.

Extent of thoracic aortic atheroma burden and long-term mortality after cardiothoracic surgery: a computed tomography study

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesized that the extent of aortic atheroma of the entire thoracic aorta, determined by pre-operative multidetector-row computed tomographic angiography (MDCTA), is associated with long-term mortality following nonaortic cardiothoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND

In patients evaluated for cardiothoracic surgery, presence of severe aortic atheroma is associated with adverse short- and long-term post-operative outcome. However, the relationship between aortic plaque burden and mortality remains unknown.

METHODS

We reviewed clinical and imaging data from all patients who underwent electrocardiographic-gated contrast-enhanced MDCTA prior to coronary bypass or valvular heart surgery at our institution between 2002 and 2008. MDCTA studies were analyzed for thickness and circumferential extent of aortic atheroma in 5 segments of the thoracic aorta. A semiquantitative total plaque-burden score (TPBS) was calculated by assigning a score of 1 to 3 to plaque thickness and to circumferential plaque extent. When combined, this resulted in a score of 0 to 6 for each of the 5 segments and, hence, an overall score from 0 to 30. The primary end point was all-cause mortality during long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 862 patients (71% men, 67.8 years) were included and followed over a mean period of 25 ± 16 months. The mean TPBS was 8.6 (SD: ±6.0). The TPBS was a statistically significant predictor of mortality (p < 0.0001) while controlling for baseline demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and type of surgery including reoperative status. The estimated hazard ratio for TPBS was 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 1.045 to 1.12). Other independent predictors of mortality were glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.015), type of surgery (p = 0.007), and peripheral artery disease (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Extent of thoracic aortic atheroma burden is independently associated with increased long-term mortality in patients following cardiothoracic surgery. Although our data do not provide definitive evidence, they suggest a relationship to the systemic atherosclerotic disease process and, therefore, have important implications for secondary prevention in post-operative rehabilitation programs.

Three-vessel coronary disease in diabetics: personalized versus evidence-based revascularization strategy

A steady increase in the number of diabetic patients undergoing coronary revascularization has been recorded in recent years. The causes for this rise are found predominantly in the general demographic development of western industrialized nations, the epidemic progress and wide-spread of diabetes mellitus and changes in assignment behavior. In this article, the specific risk profile of diabetic coronary patients with three-vessel disease in percutaneous or surgical revascularization and tried and tested treatment concepts for this particularly challenging group of patients, with reference to the most recent study results will be presented. Particularly, the peculiarities of coronary heart disease in diabetic patients, the choice of revascularization method, different operative strategies for diabetic patients with coronary heart disease, and challenges faced during follow-up are discussed.

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.

Surgical versus percutaneous revascularization of coronary artery disease in diabetic patients

Morbidity and mortality related to coronary artery disease (CAD) remain a great challenge in patients with diabetes mellitus. Revascularization of CAD is an important therapeutic intervention owing to its impact on both symptoms and prognosis. The optimal revascularization strategy continues to evolve due to the advent of new technologies and improved peri-procedural outcome with both percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass grafting. Although clinical outcome following coronary artery bypass is worse in diabetic as opposed to non-diabetic patients, surgical revascularization tends to be associated with better outcome in stable patients with multivessel disease and reduced left ventricular function. The advent of drug-eluting stents has challenged the supremacy of coronary artery bypass grafting and has become a valuable alternative to surgery. The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of patients with diabetes and multivessel disease is currently under investigation in several ongoing randomized controlled trials. Percutaneous coronary intervention is the therapy of choice in patients with acute coronary syndromes, particularly ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The focus of this review is to present the current evidence, define the role of percutaneous and surgical revascularization in the treatment of diabetic patients with CAD, and propose a tailored approach for clinical decision-making.

Optimal revascularization strategy for diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: the duel between old hero and young warrior

Given the results of the BARI and ARTS I trials and a meta-analysis, coronary artery bypass surgery has been preferred to percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetics with multivessel coronary artery disease requiring hypoglycemic treatment and in whom internal mammary artery grafts can be used. This approach was strongly recommended in a 2002 ACC/AHA Task Force on the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome. But, these recommendations were made before the availability of drug-eluting stents. We strongly believe that the ongoing, multi-centre FREEDOM, CARDia and SYNTAX trials will elucidate the optimal revascularization strategy for diabetic patients with multivessel disease in the near future.

Long-Term Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Background— Although previous studies have compared the treatment effects of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the long-term outcomes beyond 1 year among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES) or CABG have not been evaluated.

Methods and Results— Between January 2003 and December 2005, 3042 patients with multivessel disease underwent coronary implantation of DES (n=1547) or CABG (n=1495). The primary end point was all-cause mortality. In a crude analysis, the rate of long-term mortality was significantly higher in patients who underwent CABG than in those who underwent DES implantation (3-year unadjusted mortality rate, 7.0% for CABG versus 4.4% for percutaneous coronary intervention; P =0.01). However, after adjustment for baseline differences, the overall risks of death were similar among all patients (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.30; P =0.45), diabetic patients (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.82 to 3.78; P =0.15), and patients with compromised ventricular function (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.41 to 4.65; P =0.60). In the anatomic subgroups, mortality benefit with DES implantation was noted in patients with 2-vessel disease with involvement of the nonproximal left anterior descending artery (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.78; P =0.016). The rate of revascularization was significantly higher in the DES than in the CABG group (hazard ratio, 2.81; 95% CI, 2.11 to 3.75; P <0.001).

Conclusions— For the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention with DES implantation showed equivalent long-term mortality as CABG.

Comparison of bypass surgery with drug‐eluting stents for diabetic patients with multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study of prospectively collected data compared coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery to drug-eluting stenting (DES) in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Prior randomized trials and clinical studies have suggested that CABG may be the preferred revascularization strategy in diabetic patients with multivessel CAD. Data are limited regarding the impact of DES vs. CABG on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We included 205 consecutive diabetic patients who underwent either CABG (n=103) or DES (n=102). The primary clinical end points were freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between both groups. At 1 year, the mortality rate was similar in the CABG and DES group (8% vs. 10%, p=0.6) but the MACE rate was lower in the CABG group (12% vs. 27%, p=0.006) due to less repeat revascularization with CABG (3% vs. 20%, p<0.001). Stroke occurred only in the CABG group (4% vs. 0%, p=0.04). Angiographically-documented stent thrombosis after DES occurred in 3%. Presentation with acute myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR], 2.26, 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.55) and DES (HR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.23 to 4.77) were positive independent predictors, whereas therapy with a statin was a negative independent predictor of MACE (HR, 0.40, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Bypass surgery was associated with less MACE primarily due to the higher repeat revascularization rate with DES and is therefore superior to DES despite more extensive CAD in CABG patients.

Incidence of In-hospital Mortality or Nonfatal Myocardial Infarction or Nonfatal Stroke in 216 Diabetics and 552 Nondiabetics Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stenting

We investigated the incidence of in-hospital mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke in 216 patients with diabetes mellitus and in 552 patients without diabetes mellitus (68% men and 32% women, mean age 66 +/- 14 y) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting. Symptomatic chest pain was present in 95% of diabetics and in 95% of nondiabetics. Unstable symptoms were present in 67% of diabetics and in 68% of nondiabetics. Aspirin was used in 99% of diabetics and nondiabetics. Clopidogrel was used in 98% of diabetics and nondiabetics. Beta blockers were used in 85% of diabetics and nondiabetics. Lipid-lowering drugs were used in 96% of diabetics and in 95% of nondiabetics. In-hospital mortality occurred in 2 of 216 diabetics (0.9%) and in 2 of 552 nondiabetics (0.4%), P not significant. In-hospital mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke occurred in 3 of 216 diabetics (1.4%) and in 6 of 552 nondiabetics (1.1%), P not significant.

The effects of diabetes mellitus on coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has been a mainstay in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Diabetes is prevalent in these patients and has significant effects in the operative period as well as in long-term survival. Diabetes is a risk factor in increased incidence of mortality as well as deep sternal wound infection after CABG surgery. Long-term survival is also significantly affected by diabetes. Clinicians who treat diabetic patients with coronary artery disease should be aware of the effects this condition has on the outcomes of CABG surgery.