BACKGROUND: It is not yet clear whether glycemic control affects the clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study compared the effects of glycemic control on the clinical outcome in 2 groups of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who underwent PCI: a poor-glycemic-control group, who showed greater than 6.9% HbA(1c) at the time of PCI (Pre-HbA(1c)) (`≥6.9 group', n=334 patients) and a good-glycemic-control group, who showed less than <6.9% at Pre-HbA(1c) (`<6.9 group', n=212 patients). The patients in the ≥6.9 group were further divided into 2 groups for further comparisons: a `DM control group' and a `Poor control group'. At follow-up (300 days), the incidence of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was significantly (P<0.05) lower in the <6.9 group (18.4% vs. 26.2%). However, there was no difference in MACE between the DM control group and the Poor control group. In a multivariate analysis, there was no relationship between the incidence of MACE and Pre-HbA(1c), Pre-HbA(1c)≥6.9% or the HbA(1c) difference (Pre-HbA(1c)-HbA(1c) at follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes in the <6.9 group were superior to those in the ≥6.9 group as pre-PCI glycemic control affected the baseline characteristics. The results suggested that glycemic control started at PCI was not associated with an improvement in the clinical outcome at follow-up. All rights are reserved to the Japanese Circulation Society.
BACKGROUND: It is not yet clear whether glycemic control affects the clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabeticpatients. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study compared the effects of glycemic control on the clinical outcome in 2 groups of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who underwent PCI: a poor-glycemic-control group, who showed greater than 6.9% HbA(1c) at the time of PCI (Pre-HbA(1c)) (`≥6.9 group', n=334 patients) and a good-glycemic-control group, who showed less than <6.9% at Pre-HbA(1c) (`<6.9 group', n=212 patients). The patients in the ≥6.9 group were further divided into 2 groups for further comparisons: a `DM control group' and a `Poor control group'. At follow-up (300 days), the incidence of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was significantly (P<0.05) lower in the <6.9 group (18.4% vs. 26.2%). However, there was no difference in MACE between the DM control group and the Poor control group. In a multivariate analysis, there was no relationship between the incidence of MACE and Pre-HbA(1c), Pre-HbA(1c)≥6.9% or the HbA(1c) difference (Pre-HbA(1c)-HbA(1c) at follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes in the <6.9 group were superior to those in the ≥6.9 group as pre-PCI glycemic control affected the baseline characteristics. The results suggested that glycemic control started at PCI was not associated with an improvement in the clinical outcome at follow-up. All rights are reserved to the Japanese Circulation Society.