We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Comparison of bypass surgery and drug-eluting stenting in diabetic patients with left main and/or multivessel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies.
Cardiology Journal 2015
BACKGROUND: With advances in theinterventional field, the choice between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (PCI-DES) for the diabetic subset with left main (LM) and/or multivessel disease (MVD) remains consistently controversial.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational controlled trials (OCTs) comparing the two strategies for the diabetic subset with LM and/or MVD. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases, Google Scholar and SinoMed were systematically searched for eligible studies without language and publication restrictions. We identified 19 trials (4 randomized and 15 nonrandomized), enrolling 5,805 patients in OCTs and 3,060 patients in RCTs, respectively. PCI-DES was associated with higher mortality compared with CABG (11.7% DES vs. 9.1% CABG, RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00-1.53, p = 0.06). Patients after PCI-DES had higher prevalence of myocardial infarction (MI) when compared with CABG (8.5% DES vs. 4.6% CABG, RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.20-2.37, p = 0.003). PCI-DES patients were at substantially lower risk of stroke (2.0% DES vs. 3.9% CABG, RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.39-0.67, p < 0.00001), but at several-fold higher risk of repeat revascularization (19.0% DES vs. 6.3% CABG, RR 2.95, 95% CI 2.46-3.55, p < 0.00001). The OCT patients risked a lower mortality as compared to the RCT patients (9.6% OCTs vs. 11.9% RCTs, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: CABG for patients with diabetes mellitus and LM and/or MVD had advantages over PCI-DES in all-cause death, nonfatal MI, and repeat revascularization, but the substantial disadvantage in nonfatal stroke. The high-selected patients (RCTs) risked a higher mortality than the real-world patients (OCTs).
METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational controlled trials (OCTs) comparing the two strategies for the diabetic subset with LM and/or MVD. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases, Google Scholar and SinoMed were systematically searched for eligible studies without language and publication restrictions. We identified 19 trials (4 randomized and 15 nonrandomized), enrolling 5,805 patients in OCTs and 3,060 patients in RCTs, respectively. PCI-DES was associated with higher mortality compared with CABG (11.7% DES vs. 9.1% CABG, RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00-1.53, p = 0.06). Patients after PCI-DES had higher prevalence of myocardial infarction (MI) when compared with CABG (8.5% DES vs. 4.6% CABG, RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.20-2.37, p = 0.003). PCI-DES patients were at substantially lower risk of stroke (2.0% DES vs. 3.9% CABG, RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.39-0.67, p < 0.00001), but at several-fold higher risk of repeat revascularization (19.0% DES vs. 6.3% CABG, RR 2.95, 95% CI 2.46-3.55, p < 0.00001). The OCT patients risked a lower mortality as compared to the RCT patients (9.6% OCTs vs. 11.9% RCTs, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: CABG for patients with diabetes mellitus and LM and/or MVD had advantages over PCI-DES in all-cause death, nonfatal MI, and repeat revascularization, but the substantial disadvantage in nonfatal stroke. The high-selected patients (RCTs) risked a higher mortality than the real-world patients (OCTs).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app