Louai Razzouk1, Frederick Feit2, Michael E Farkouh3,4. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, 10016, USA. Louai.Razzouk@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 3. Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Heart and Stroke Richard Lewar Centre of Excellence in CV Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at an increased risk of systemic atherosclerosis and advanced coronary artery disease (CAD). Herein, we review clinical trials comparing surgical to percutaneous revascularization in the context of the unique pathophysiology in this patient population, and seek to answer the question of optimal strategy of revascularization. RECENT FINDINGS: Early studies showed a signal towards benefit of surgical revascularization over percutaneous revascularization in this group, but there was a paucity of randomized clinical trials (RCT) to directly support this finding. The Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease (FREEDOM), a large-scale international RCT, was then undertaken and established the benefit of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization; CABG was inferior to PCI with regards to stroke. The quality of life and cost effectiveness also demonstrated a long-term benefit for surgery. The decision as to choice of mode of revascularization in patients with T2DM and advanced CAD depends upon a multitude of factors, including the coronary anatomy, co-morbidities and the patient's surgical risk. These factors influence the recommendation of the cardiovascular team, which should result in a balanced presentation of the short and long-term risks and benefits of either mode of revascularization to the patient and his/her family.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at an increased risk of systemic atherosclerosis and advanced coronary artery disease (CAD). Herein, we review clinical trials comparing surgical to percutaneous revascularization in the context of the unique pathophysiology in this patient population, and seek to answer the question of optimal strategy of revascularization. RECENT FINDINGS: Early studies showed a signal towards benefit of surgical revascularization over percutaneous revascularization in this group, but there was a paucity of randomized clinical trials (RCT) to directly support this finding. The Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease (FREEDOM), a large-scale international RCT, was then undertaken and established the benefit of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization; CABG was inferior to PCI with regards to stroke. The quality of life and cost effectiveness also demonstrated a long-term benefit for surgery. The decision as to choice of mode of revascularization in patients with T2DM and advanced CAD depends upon a multitude of factors, including the coronary anatomy, co-morbidities and the patient's surgical risk. These factors influence the recommendation of the cardiovascular team, which should result in a balanced presentation of the short and long-term risks and benefits of either mode of revascularization to the patient and his/her family.
Authors: F Feit; M M Brooks; G Sopko; N M Keller; A Rosen; R Krone; P B Berger; R Shemin; M J Attubato; D O Williams; R Frye; K M Detre Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-06-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stephan D Fihn; James C Blankenship; Karen P Alexander; John A Bittl; John G Byrne; Barbara J Fletcher; Gregg C Fonarow; Richard A Lange; Glenn N Levine; Thomas M Maddox; Srihari S Naidu; E Magnus Ohman; Peter K Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Akhil Kapur; Roger J Hall; Iqbal S Malik; Ayesha C Qureshi; Jeremy Butts; Mark de Belder; Andreas Baumbach; Gianni Angelini; Adam de Belder; Keith G Oldroyd; Marcus Flather; Michael Roughton; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Jens Peder Bagger; Kenneth Morgan; Kevin J Beatt Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William C Cushman; Gregory W Evans; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey A Cutler; Denise G Simons-Morton; Jan N Basile; Marshall A Corson; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Lois Katz; Kevin A Peterson; William T Friedewald; John B Buse; J Thomas Bigger; Hertzel C Gerstein; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Masoor Kamalesh; Thomas G Sharp; X Charlene Tang; Kendrick Shunk; Herbert B Ward; James Walsh; Spencer King; Cindy Colling; Thomas Moritz; Kevin Stroupe; Domenic Reda Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Helen M Colhoun; D John Betteridge; Paul N Durrington; Graham A Hitman; H Andrew W Neil; Shona J Livingstone; Margaret J Thomason; Michael I Mackness; Valentine Charlton-Menys; John H Fuller Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Aug 21-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Roxana Mehran; George D Dangas; Yoshio Kobayashi; Alexandra J Lansky; Gary S Mintz; Eve D Aymong; Martin Fahy; Jeffrey W Moses; Gregg W Stone; Martin B Leon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-04-21 Impact factor: 24.094