OBJECTIVES: To explore the clinical performance of a strategy of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with multivessel disease (MVD) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), when it is based on clinical judgment. BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for poor outcome after PCI. However, PCI may result in better outcome if the choice of revascularization (PCI versus CABG) is based on the physician decision, rather than randomization. Limited experiences have compared revascularization by DES-PCI versus CABG in DM patients with MVD. METHODS: From August 2004 to August 2005, 220 consecutive DM patients with MVD underwent DES-PCI (93) or CABG (127) at our Institution. The type of revascularization was dependent on patient and/or physician choice. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stroke. RESULTS: Compared with PCI patients, CABG patients had higher prevalence of 3-vessel disease (P < 0.001), significant LAD involvement (P < 0.001), presence of total occlusions (P = 0.04), collateral circulation (P < 0.001). At 2-year follow-up, MACCE were not different between CABG group and DES-PCI group (OR 1.2; P = 0.6) and, only when the clinical judgment on the revascularization choice was excluded at propensity analysis, DES-PCI increased the risk of 24-month MACCE in total population (OR 1.8; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with DM and MVD, a clinical judgment-based revascularization by DES-PCI is not associated with worse 2-year outcome compared with CABG. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the clinical performance of a strategy of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabeticpatients with multivessel disease (MVD) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), when it is based on clinical judgment. BACKGROUND:Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for poor outcome after PCI. However, PCI may result in better outcome if the choice of revascularization (PCI versus CABG) is based on the physician decision, rather than randomization. Limited experiences have compared revascularization by DES-PCI versus CABG in DMpatients with MVD. METHODS: From August 2004 to August 2005, 220 consecutive DMpatients with MVD underwent DES-PCI (93) or CABG (127) at our Institution. The type of revascularization was dependent on patient and/or physician choice. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stroke. RESULTS: Compared with PCI patients, CABG patients had higher prevalence of 3-vessel disease (P < 0.001), significant LAD involvement (P < 0.001), presence of total occlusions (P = 0.04), collateral circulation (P < 0.001). At 2-year follow-up, MACCE were not different between CABG group and DES-PCI group (OR 1.2; P = 0.6) and, only when the clinical judgment on the revascularization choice was excluded at propensity analysis, DES-PCI increased the risk of 24-month MACCE in total population (OR 1.8; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with DM and MVD, a clinical judgment-based revascularization by DES-PCI is not associated with worse 2-year outcome compared with CABG. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Janusz Konstanty-Kalandyk; Jacek Piatek; Pawel Rudzinski; Krzysztof Wrobel; Krzysztof Bartus; Jerzy Sadowski Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2012-09-20
Authors: Vasilios G Athyros; Thomas D Gossios; Konstantinos Tziomalos; Matilda Florentin; Asterios Karagiannis; Dimitri P Mikhailidis Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Chris P H Lexis; Braim M Rahel; Joan G Meeder; Felix Zijlstra; Iwan C C van der Horst Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 9.951