Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Diabetic Patients With Multivessel and/or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery by-pass grafting in premature coronary artery disease: What is the evidence? -A narrative review

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains one of the leading causes of death globally. In the United States of America, in 2016, 19% of all patients under the age of 65 died of cardiovascular disease despite improvements in primary prevention. The premature clinical onset of symptoms in the young population (<60 years) is much more aggressive than in the older population, and the overall long-term prognosis is poor. CAD appears to have a rapidly progressive form in those under the age of 60 due to genetic predisposition, smoking, and substance abuse, however, the ideal management strategy is still yet to be established. The two primary methods of establishing coronary revascularization are percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Despite the increasing prevalence of CAD in the young population, they are consistently underrepresented in major randomized clinical trials of each revascularization strategy. Both CABG and PCI are known to have similar survival rates, but PCI is associated with higher repeat revascularization rate. Many argue this may be due to the progressive nature of CAD combined with the vessel patency time required in a patient under 60 with potentially another 20-30 years of life. There is little in literature regarding the outcomes of these various revascularization strategies in populations under 60 years with CAD. This review summarises the current evidence for each revascularisation strategy in patients under the age of 60 and suggests future avenues of research for this unique age group.

CABG versus PCI in the Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Disease in Diabetics: A Literature Review

The approach to left main coronary artery disease (CAD) in diabetic patients has been extensively debated. Diabetic patients have an elevated risk of left main disease in addition to multivessel disease. Previous trials have shown increased revascularization rates in percutaneous coronary intervention compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) but overall comparable outcomes, although many of these studies were not using the latest stent technology or CABG with arterial revascularization. Our aim is to review the most recent trials that have recently published long-term follow-up, as well as other literature pertaining to left main disease in diabetic patients. Furthermore, we will be discussing some future treatment strategies that could likely create a paradigm shift in how left main CAD is managed.

Ten-Year Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Suffering from Left Main Coronary Disease: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In this meta-analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the 10-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) suffering from left main coronary artery disease (LMCD).

METHODS

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov , Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google scholar were searched for publications comparing 10-year outcomes of PCI versus CABG in patients with T2DM suffering from LMCD. Cardiovascular outcomes were considered as the clinical endpoints. Statistical analysis was carried out using RevMan software (version 5.4). Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the data after analysis.

RESULTS

Eight studies (three randomized trials and five observational studies) with a total number of 3835 participants with T2DM were included in this analysis; 2340 participants were assigned to the PCI group and 1495 participants were assigned to the CABG group. Results of this analysis showed that mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-1.00; P = 0.05), myocardial infarction (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.80; P = 0.002), repeated revascularization (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26-0.46; P = 0.00001), and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18-0.38; P = 0.00001) were significantly higher with PCI when compared to CABG in these patients with diabetes and LMCD. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were also significantly higher with PCI at 10 years (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.92; P = 0.01). However, CABG was associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.39-3.37; P = 0.0007).

CONCLUSIONS

During a long-term follow-up time period of 10 years, PCI was associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to CABG in these patients with T2DM suffering from LMCD. However, a significantly higher risk of stroke was observed with CABG. This piece of information might be vital in order to carefully choose and prevent complications following revascularization in such patients.

Second Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Treatment of Young Patients with Left Main and/or Multivessel Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

Many studies have compared the outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery disease (CAD). However, no trials have focused on young patients (<45 years) with complex CAD. We conducted a retrospective evaluation to compare the outcomes of a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) and CABG in young patients with LM or three-vessel disease.

METHODS

In young patients with complex CAD who underwent PCI or CABG, a Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression before and after propensity score matching were used to compare major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, death, and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

During follow-up, MACCE occurred in 20.5% of patients in the PCI group and 8.6% of patients in the CABG group (hazard ratio (HR): 3.263, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.379 to 7.722, p=0.007). Repeat revascularization occurred more frequently in the PCI group (18.9% vs. 3.7%, respectively, HR: 6.968, 95% CI: 2.036 to 23.842, p=0.002). There were no significant differences in the other endpoints. After propensity score matching, no conclusions were modified.

CONCLUSIONS

In young patients with LM or three-vessel disease, PCI showed a higher incidence of MACCE, which was mainly driven by repeat revascularization. However, this did not translate into hard endpoint differences. Therefore, PCI is an alternative treatment to CABG in young patients with complex CAD.