Routine angiographic follow-up versus clinical follow-up in patients with diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in Korean population

•Usefulness of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) in diabetes is less well known.•RAF cause increased incidence of revascularization and major adverse cardiac events.•Target lesion revascularization also higher in second-generation drug-eluting stents. The usefulness of routine angiographic follow...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Diabetes research and clinical practice 2018-04, Vol.138, p.138-148
Main Authors: Kim, Yong Hoon, Her, Ae-Young, Choi, Byoung Geol, Choi, Se Yeon, Byun, Jae Kyeong, Park, Yoonjee, Baek, Man Jong, Ryu, Yang Gi, Mashaly, Ahmed, Jang, Won Young, Kim, Woohyeun, Park, Eun Jin, Choi, Jah Yeon, Na, Jin Oh, Choi, Cheol Ung, Lim, Hong Euy, Kim, Eung Ju, Park, Chang Gyu, Seo, Hong Seog, Rha, Seung-Woon
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical follow-up
Diabetes
Drug-eluting stent
Percutaneous coronary intervention
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•Usefulness of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) in diabetes is less well known.•RAF cause increased incidence of revascularization and major adverse cardiac events.•Target lesion revascularization also higher in second-generation drug-eluting stents. The usefulness of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) and clinical follow-up (CF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes is not well understood. We compare 3-year clinical outcomes of RAF and CF in diabetic patients underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES). A total of 843 patients with diabetes who underwent PCI with DES were enrolled. RAF was performed at 6–9 months after PCI (n = 426). Rest of patients were medically managed and clinically followed (n = 417); symptom-driven events were captured. After propensity score matched analysis, 2 propensity-matched groups (262 pairs, n = 524, C-statistic = 0.750) were generated. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), the composite of total death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), non-target vessel revascularization (Non-TVR). During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidence of target lesion revascularization [TLR: hazard ratio (HR), 4.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18–9.34; p = 0.001], target vessel revascularization (TVR: HR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.93–8.40; p 
ISSN:0168-8227
1872-8227
DOI:10.1016/j.diabres.2018.02.007