Marked improvements in outcomes of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes mellitus

Temporal changes in the outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute dynamic registry

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at higher risk for adverse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

To determine whether outcomes have improved over time, we analyzed data from 2,838 consecutive patients with medically treated DM, including 1,066 patients (37.6%) treated with insulin, in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry undergoing PCI registered in waves 1 (1997-1998), 2 (1999), 3 (2001-2002), 4 (2004), and 5 (2006). We compared baseline demographics and 1-year outcomes in the overall cohort and in analyses stratified by recruitment wave and insulin use.

RESULTS

Crude mortality rates by chronological wave were 9.5%, 12.5%, 8.9%, 11.6%, and 6.6% (P value(trend) = .33) among those treated with insulin and, respectively, 9.7%, 6.5%, 4.1%, 5.4%, and 4.7% (P value(trend) = .006) among patients treated with oral agents,. The adjusted hazard ratios of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and overall major adverse cardiovascular events (death, MI, revascularization) in insulin-treated patients with DM in waves 2 to 5 as compared with wave 1 were either higher or the same. In contrast, the similar adjusted hazard ratios for oral agent-treated patients with DM were either similar or lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvements over time in adverse events by 1 year were detected in patients with DM treated with oral agents. In insulin-treated diabetic patients, despite lower rates of repeat revascularization over time, death and MI following PCI have not significantly improved. These findings underscore the need for continued efforts at optimizing outcomes among patients with DM undergoing PCI, especially those requiring insulin treatment.

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.

Revascularization for coronary artery disease in diabetes mellitus: angioplasty, stents and coronary artery bypass grafting

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are prone to a diffuse and rapidly progressive form of atherosclerosis, which increases their likelihood of requiring revascularization. However, the unique pathophysiology of atherosclerosis in patients with DM modifies the response to arterial injury, with profound clinical consequences for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Multiple studies have shown that DM is a strong risk factor for restenosis following successful balloon angioplasty or coronary stenting, with greater need for repeat revascularization and inferior clinical outcomes. Early data suggest that drug eluting stents reduce restenosis rates and the need for repeat revascularization irrespective of the diabetic state and with no significant reduction in hard clinical endpoints such as myocardial infarction and mortality. For many patients with 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease, there is little prognostic benefit from any intervention over optimal medical therapy. PCI with drug-eluting or bare metal stents is appropriate for patients who remain symptomatic with medical therapy. However, selection of the optimal myocardial revascularization strategy for patients with DM and multivessel coronary artery disease is crucial. Randomized trials comparing multivessel PCI with balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) consistently demonstrated the superiority of CABG in patients with treated DM. In the setting of diabetes CABG had greater survival, fewer recurrent infarctions or need for re-intervention. Limited data suggests that CABG is superior to multivessel PCI even when drug-eluting stents are used. Several ongoing randomized trials are evaluating the long-term comparative efficacy of PCI with drug-eluting stents and CABG in patients with DM. Only further study will continue to unravel the mechanisms at play and optimal therapy in the face of the profoundly virulent atherosclerotic potential that accompanies diabetes mellitus.