Flaherty James D, Davidson Charles J
Northwestern Cardiovascular Institute, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill, USA.
JAMA. 2005 Mar 23;293(12):1501-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.12.1501.
Patients with diabetes mellitus account for approximately 25% of the nearly 1.5 million coronary revascularization procedures performed each year in the United States and experience worse outcomes compared with nondiabetic patients.
To summarize the current state of evidence comparing the effectiveness and safety of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients and to examine developments that may affect future outcomes in this high-risk group.
Using the key terms diabetes mellitus, revascularization, coronary artery bypass, angioplasty, and coronary intervention, we searched MEDLINE from 1985 to 2004 for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CABG surgery and PCI that reported outcomes in diabetic patients. Bibliographies and the Web sites of cardiology conferences were also reviewed. Studies comparing drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents were identified in a similar fashion. The literature was reviewed to identify clinical measures that may impact revascularization outcomes in diabetic patients.
We identified 6 RCTs comparing CABG surgery and PCI in a total of 950 diabetic patients. A mortality benefit for CABG over balloon-only PCI has been demonstrated in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease but has not been clearly established against stent-assisted PCI or in high-risk CABG patients. Use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors has improved survival in diabetic patients undergoing PCI. Restenosis after PCI in diabetic patients has led to substantially higher repeat revascularization rates than after CABG. The use of drug-eluting stents has led to dramatic reductions in restenosis in diabetic patients. Ongoing RCTs comparing CABG and PCI using drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients will clarify the impact of these advances on outcomes.
There is a relative lack of data from RCTs specifically comparing CABG surgery and PCI as currently practiced in diabetic patients. The mortality advantage and decreased rates of revascularization seen with CABG in subgroups from early trials may not be applicable in the era of drug-eluting stents, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and the latest medical therapies.
在美国,每年近150万例冠状动脉血运重建手术中,糖尿病患者约占25%,与非糖尿病患者相比,其预后更差。
总结比较冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)在糖尿病患者中的有效性和安全性的现有证据,并研究可能影响这一高危人群未来预后的进展。
使用关键词“糖尿病”“血运重建”“冠状动脉旁路移植术”“血管成形术”和“冠状动脉介入治疗”,我们检索了1985年至2004年的MEDLINE数据库,以查找所有比较CABG和PCI且报告糖尿病患者预后的随机对照试验(RCT)。还查阅了参考文献以及心脏病学会议的网站。以类似方式确定了比较药物洗脱支架和裸金属支架的研究。对文献进行综述以确定可能影响糖尿病患者血运重建预后的临床指标。
我们确定了6项RCT,共纳入950例糖尿病患者,比较了CABG和PCI。对于多支冠状动脉疾病的糖尿病患者,已证明CABG相对于单纯球囊PCI有降低死亡率的益处,但与支架辅助PCI相比或在高危CABG患者中,这一益处尚未明确确立。糖蛋白IIb/IIIa受体抑制剂的使用提高了接受PCI的糖尿病患者的生存率。糖尿病患者PCI后的再狭窄导致再次血运重建率远高于CABG后。药物洗脱支架的使用已使糖尿病患者的再狭窄显著降低。正在进行的比较CABG和使用药物洗脱支架的PCI在糖尿病患者中的RCT将阐明这些进展对预后的影响。
目前专门比较CABG和PCI在糖尿病患者中应用情况的RCT数据相对较少。早期试验亚组中CABG所见的死亡率优势和血运重建率降低可能不适用于药物洗脱支架、糖蛋白IIb/IIIa抑制剂和最新药物治疗的时代。