4.3 Review

Revascularization for Advanced Coronary Artery Disease in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: Choosing Wisely Between PCI and Surgery

Journal

CURRENT CARDIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11886-017-0849-7

Keywords

Diabetes; Advanced coronary artery disease; PCI; CABG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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. Summary The decision as to choice of mode of revascularization in patients with T2DMand advanced CAD depends upon a multitude of factors, including the coronary anatomy, comorbidities 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

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available