Revascularization outcomes in diabetic patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome with non-ST elevation.
Journal
Cardiovascular diabetology
ISSN: 1475-2840
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Diabetol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147637
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 09 2022
05 09 2022
Historique:
received:
02
11
2021
accepted:
03
08
2022
entrez:
5
9
2022
pubmed:
6
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the outcomes of diabetic patients hospitalized with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina (UA) referred for revascularization by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a real-life setting. The study included 1987 patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled from the biennial Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey between 2000 and 2016, who were hospitalized for NSTEMI or UA, and underwent either PCI (N = 1652, 83%) or CABG (N = 335, 17%). Propensity score-matching analysis compared all-cause mortality in 200 pairs (1:1) who underwent revascularization by either PCI or CABG. Independent predictors for CABG referral included 3-vessel coronary artery disease (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.6-6.8, p < 0.001), absence of on-site cardiac surgery (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, p = 0.013), no previous PCI (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.024) or MI (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p = 0.002). While at 2 years of follow-up, survival analysis revealed no differences in mortality risk between the surgical and percutaneous revascularization groups (log-rank p = 0.996), after 2 years CABG was associated with a significant survival benefit (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07-2.21; p = 0.021). Comparison of the propensity score matching pairs also revealed a consistent long-term advantage toward CABG (log-rank p = 0.031). In a real-life setting, revascularization by CABG of diabetic patients hospitalized with NSTEMI/UA is associated with better long-term outcomes. Prospective randomized studies are warranted in order to provide more effective recommendations in future guidelines.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To compare the outcomes of diabetic patients hospitalized with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina (UA) referred for revascularization by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a real-life setting.
METHODS
The study included 1987 patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled from the biennial Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey between 2000 and 2016, who were hospitalized for NSTEMI or UA, and underwent either PCI (N = 1652, 83%) or CABG (N = 335, 17%). Propensity score-matching analysis compared all-cause mortality in 200 pairs (1:1) who underwent revascularization by either PCI or CABG.
RESULTS
Independent predictors for CABG referral included 3-vessel coronary artery disease (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.6-6.8, p < 0.001), absence of on-site cardiac surgery (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, p = 0.013), no previous PCI (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.024) or MI (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p = 0.002). While at 2 years of follow-up, survival analysis revealed no differences in mortality risk between the surgical and percutaneous revascularization groups (log-rank p = 0.996), after 2 years CABG was associated with a significant survival benefit (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07-2.21; p = 0.021). Comparison of the propensity score matching pairs also revealed a consistent long-term advantage toward CABG (log-rank p = 0.031).
CONCLUSIONS
In a real-life setting, revascularization by CABG of diabetic patients hospitalized with NSTEMI/UA is associated with better long-term outcomes. Prospective randomized studies are warranted in order to provide more effective recommendations in future guidelines.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36064537
doi: 10.1186/s12933-022-01595-5
pii: 10.1186/s12933-022-01595-5
pmc: PMC9443038
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
175Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 20;367(25):2375-84
pubmed: 23121323
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 7;40(2):87-165
pubmed: 30165437
Can J Cardiol. 2018 May;34(5):632-643
pubmed: 29731023
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 16;8(9):e72710
pubmed: 24066025
Isr Med Assoc J. 2003 Apr;5(4):249-54
pubmed: 14509128
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Autumn;34(3):920-929
pubmed: 34289411
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Oct;3(10):1059-67
pubmed: 20965465
Circulation. 2017 Mar 7;135(10):e146-e603
pubmed: 28122885
Neth Heart J. 2010 Dec;18(12):598-602
pubmed: 21301622
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2016 Jul 19;15:100
pubmed: 27431395
J Int Med Res. 2019 Jun;47(6):2533-2544
pubmed: 31039653
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 May;43(5):1006-13
pubmed: 23413014
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Mar;4(3):317-23
pubmed: 21435610
Eur Heart J. 2004 Nov;25(21):1891-7
pubmed: 15522467
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Jan 1;55(1):4-90
pubmed: 30165632
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Apr 15;115(8):1063-72
pubmed: 25733384
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Oct 1;78(4):537-9
pubmed: 21953750
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 14;69(10):1234-1242
pubmed: 28279289
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Jun;151(6):1686-92
pubmed: 26964912
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 30;168(2):1028-33
pubmed: 23164591
Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2016 Feb;26(2):165-79
pubmed: 26411567
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 29;373(18):1720-32
pubmed: 26510021
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006 Mar 03;1:2
pubmed: 16722589
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Oct;160(4):926-935.e6
pubmed: 31653430
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 14;37(3):267-315
pubmed: 26320110
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 19;70(24):2995-3006
pubmed: 29241487
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Dec 23;64(24):e139-e228
pubmed: 25260718
Eur Heart J. 2014 Oct 1;35(37):2541-619
pubmed: 25173339
Circulation. 2015 Jul 7;132(1):20-6
pubmed: 26022910
Am J Cardiol. 2014 Oct 1;114(7):979-87
pubmed: 25124186
J Cardiol. 2012 Nov;60(5):361-6
pubmed: 22890073
N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 1;344(9):645-54
pubmed: 11228280