Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention relative to bypass surgery in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease according to clinical presentation

摘要

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background For diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), limited data exist on the long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) according to clinical presentation [stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) or non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS)]. Patients and methods From a Korean multicenter registry, we analyzed 1135 diabetic patients with MVD treated with PCI ( n ?=?660) or CABG ( n ?=?475). After propensity score matching, 8-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [MACCE; composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke] were compared between PCI and CABG according to clinical presentation. Results After matching, MACCE was not different between PCI and CABG for SCAD patients [15.6 vs. 17.2%, hazard ratio (HR) ?=?0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) ?=?0.55–1.63, P ?=?0.837], whereas it was higher in PCI than in CABG for NSTE-ACS patients (31.1 vs. 22.4%, HR?=?1.63, 95% CI?=?1.03–2.59, P ?=?0.036), mainly driven by the higher MI occurrence (HR?=?2.18, 95% CI?=?1.04–4.59, P ?=?0.035). A significant interaction between revascularization strategy and clinical presentation was observed for MACCE ( P -interaction?=?0.022). However, when PCI was further classified according to revascularization completeness, the treatment gap between PCI and CABG with respect to MI in NSTE-ACS patients was improved by complete-revascularization PCI. Conclusion Among diabetic patients with MVD, the long-term outcomes of PCI versus CABG differed according to clinical presentation. CABG may be more beneficial for NSTE-ACS patients with MVD in reducing MACCE and MI, whereas PCI was as effective as CABG for SCAD patients with MVD. Therefore, clinical presentation must be considered when choosing revascularization strategies in these patients.