AIMS: The CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary disease. Patients enrolled had symptoms of myocardial ischaemia. As symptom assessment is flawed in diabetic patients, a substudy was undertaken to compare the extent to which these revascularization strategies alter reversible ischaemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-one patients underwent stress echo at baseline and at 6 months. A 17-segment echocardiographic wall motion score index (WMSI) was assigned at baseline [WMSI(pre)] and at 6 months [WMSI(post)]. An overall score defined the difference: WMSI(∂) = WMSI(pre)--WMSI(post). Of 71 patients recruited, 42 underwent PCI and 29 CABG. Mean WMSI(pre) in the PCI group was 1.63 and mean WMSI(post) was 1.32. Mean WMSI(pre) in the CABG group was 1.69 and mean WMSI(post) was 1.46. The PCI WMSI(∂) was 0.31 and CABG WMSI(∂) was 0.23 (P = 0.8). Of 42 PCI patients, 39 demonstrated ischaemia at baseline. At 6 months 31 had improvements in ischaemia (79%), 5 showed no improvement, and 3 ischaemia worsened. Of 29 CABG patients, 23 demonstrated ischaemia at baseline. At 6 months, 20 had improvements in ischaemia (87%), 2 had no improvement, and in 1 ischaemia worsened. No difference was seen in the number of patients with improvements in reversible ischaemia between PCI and CABG [79 vs. 87%, (P = 0.9)]. CONCLUSION: Optimal revascularization in diabetic patients with multivessel disease remains controversial. This subset analysis of the CARDia trial suggests both PCI and CABG achieve similar improvement in reversible ischaemia.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabeticpatients with multivessel coronary disease. Patients enrolled had symptoms of myocardial ischaemia. As symptom assessment is flawed in diabeticpatients, a substudy was undertaken to compare the extent to which these revascularization strategies alter reversible ischaemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-one patients underwent stress echo at baseline and at 6 months. A 17-segment echocardiographic wall motion score index (WMSI) was assigned at baseline [WMSI(pre)] and at 6 months [WMSI(post)]. An overall score defined the difference: WMSI(∂) = WMSI(pre)--WMSI(post). Of 71 patients recruited, 42 underwent PCI and 29 CABG. Mean WMSI(pre) in the PCI group was 1.63 and mean WMSI(post) was 1.32. Mean WMSI(pre) in the CABG group was 1.69 and mean WMSI(post) was 1.46. The PCI WMSI(∂) was 0.31 and CABG WMSI(∂) was 0.23 (P = 0.8). Of 42 PCI patients, 39 demonstrated ischaemia at baseline. At 6 months 31 had improvements in ischaemia (79%), 5 showed no improvement, and 3 ischaemia worsened. Of 29 CABG patients, 23 demonstrated ischaemia at baseline. At 6 months, 20 had improvements in ischaemia (87%), 2 had no improvement, and in 1 ischaemia worsened. No difference was seen in the number of patients with improvements in reversible ischaemia between PCI and CABG [79 vs. 87%, (P = 0.9)]. CONCLUSION: Optimal revascularization in diabeticpatients with multivessel disease remains controversial. This subset analysis of the CARDia trial suggests both PCI and CABG achieve similar improvement in reversible ischaemia.