Loading…

P4587Impact of diabetes mellitus on myocardial revascularisation method in the light of the 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines: Results from the PROUST Study

Abstract Background/Introduction Results of currently available randomized trials have shown divergent outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization do not rec...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European heart journal 2019-10, Vol.40 (Supplement_1)
Main Authors: Stanetic, B, Ostojic, M, Kovacevic-Preradovic, T, Kos, L J, Nikolic, A, Bojic, M, Campos, C, Huber, K
Format: Article
Language:English
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background/Introduction Results of currently available randomized trials have shown divergent outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization do not recommend PCI in patients with diabetes and SYNTAX score ≥23. Purpose We aimed to compare the all-cause 4-year mortality after revascularization for complex coronary artery disease (CAD) in diabetics. Methods The study group comprised consecutive diabetics with angiographically proven three-vessel CAD (≥50% diameter stenosis) and/or unprotected left main CAD (≥50% diameter stenosis) without major hemodynamic instability, who were treated in two institutions with PCI or referred for CABG between 2008 and 2010. All-cause mortality was ascertained by telephone contacts and/or from Mortality Registries. Results Using the hospital data system, 5145 patients were screened and 4803 elected not to follow the inclusion criteria. Out of 342 included patients, 177 patients underwent PCI and 165 patients were referred for CABG. Patients with whom CABG was performed were significantly older (64.69±8.8 vs. 62.6±9.4, p=0.03), more often on insulin treatment (91/165=55.2% vs. 26/177=14.7%, p
ISSN:0195-668X
1522-9645
DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0973