Xuebiao Li1, Minjian Kong, Daming Jiang, Aiqiang Dong. 1. Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although drug-eluting stents (DESs) reduce the rate of target vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents, the results of DESs for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) in the DES era are inconsistent. This meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a search of Medline, EMBASE from January 2003 to July 2013 by two reviewers independently, using the terms 'coronary artery bypass graft surgery', 'drug-eluting stent', 'sirolimus-eluting stent', 'paclitaxel-eluting stent', 'diabetes mellitus' and 'multivessel disease', according to established criteria. Studies comparing CABG with DES in patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including 6653 patients with diabetes (3237 who underwent CABG and 3416 who underwent DES implantation) met the selection criteria. The mean follow-up period was 2.9 years (range 1-5). Compared with DES, CABG was associated with a lower risk for major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.58), driven mainly by a lower risk for repeat revascularization (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.23-0.35). There was no significant difference with regard to death (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.05). Patients in the CABG group had a higher risk for stroke events (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.45-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention with DES in patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD is safe, but has a high risk of long-term repeat revascularization. CABG should remain the standard procedure for diabetic patients with multivessel CAD.
OBJECTIVES: Although drug-eluting stents (DESs) reduce the rate of target vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents, the results of DESs for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) in the DES era are inconsistent. This meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a search of Medline, EMBASE from January 2003 to July 2013 by two reviewers independently, using the terms 'coronary artery bypass graft surgery', 'drug-eluting stent', 'sirolimus-eluting stent', 'paclitaxel-eluting stent', 'diabetes mellitus' and 'multivessel disease', according to established criteria. Studies comparing CABG with DES in patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including 6653 patients with diabetes (3237 who underwent CABG and 3416 who underwent DES implantation) met the selection criteria. The mean follow-up period was 2.9 years (range 1-5). Compared with DES, CABG was associated with a lower risk for major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.58), driven mainly by a lower risk for repeat revascularization (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.23-0.35). There was no significant difference with regard to death (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.05). Patients in the CABG group had a higher risk for stroke events (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.45-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention with DES in patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD is safe, but has a high risk of long-term repeat revascularization. CABG should remain the standard procedure for diabeticpatients with multivessel CAD.
Authors: A Abizaid; M A Costa; M Centemero; A S Abizaid; V M Legrand; R V Limet; G Schuler; F W Mohr; W Lindeboom; A G Sousa; J E Sousa; B van Hout; P G Hugenholtz; F Unger; P W Serruys Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-07-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: P W Serruys; F Unger; J E Sousa; A Jatene; H J Bonnier; J P Schönberger; N Buller; R Bonser; M J van den Brand; L A van Herwerden; M A Morel; B A van Hout Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-04-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steven R Steinhubl; Peter B Berger; J Tift Mann; Edward T A Fry; Augustin DeLago; Charles Wilmer; Eric J Topol Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eugene Braunwald; Elliott M Antman; John W Beasley; Robert M Califf; Melvin D Cheitlin; Judith S Hochman; Robert H Jones; Dean Kereiakes; Joel Kupersmith; Thomas N Levin; Carl J Pepine; John W Schaeffer; Earl E Smith; David E Steward; Pierre Theroux; Raymond J Gibbons; Joseph S Alpert; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Gabriel Gregoratos; Loren F Hiratzka; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-10-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W W O'Neill; P Serruys; M Knudtson; G A van Es; G C Timmis; C van der Zwaan; J Kleiman; J Gong; E B Roecker; R Dreiling; J Alexander; R Anders Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stuart N Hoffman; John A TenBrook; Michael P Wolf; Stephen G Pauker; Deeb N Salem; John B Wong Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Peter M Scholz; Anita Y Chen; Eric D Peterson; Jeffrey Gold; Stephen H Schneider Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 24.094