[Bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes mellitus].
At present, in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary multivessel disease no fixed general recommendation can be given in favor or to the disadvantage of surgical revascularization or in favor or to the disadvantage of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In cases with an evidence-based indication for coronary revascularization because of clinical symptoms and/or proven ischemia, both therapeutic alternatives of bypass surgery or PCI are electable. The decision, which method of revascularization to prefer, must be based on close analyses of individual risk profile, individual comorbidity, and individual coronary morphology. With correct indication, both therapeutic methods are equivalent regarding the prognostically important combined endpoint of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. For PCI, however, there is a higher probability of restenosis depending on the complexity of lesion morphology, requiring more often repeat interventions or revascularizations. Before deciding in subfavor of or against a surgical or nonsurgical revascularization procedure, the complexity of the coronary artery disease should be analyzed, for example using the SYNTAX Score. In patients with SYNTAX Scores > or = 33 and no contraindications to bypass surgery, a surgical revascularization should be preferred. In the intermediate group with SYNTAX Scores between 23 und 32, the advantages and disadvantages of bypass surgery or PCI, for instance, the increased probability of restenosis with a higher necessity of repeat revascularizations after PCI, should be extensively discussed with the patient. In patients with SYNTAX Scores between 0 and 22, the nonsurgical, interventional therapy using drug-eluting stents (DES) can be recommended as an equivalent alternative to bypass surgery. In meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses of large registries with PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus, clear advantages of DES in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) could be shown. Especially for patients with diabetes mellitus, there is still no clear evidence in favor of or against a special DES type or in favor of or against a special stent covering. Further sufficiently powered randomized controlled trials with hard clinical endpoints comparing bypass surgery with PCI (e.g., FREEDOM trial) and comparing different types of DES in patients with diabetes mellitus and clear PCI indications must be awaited, before further recommendations can be given.
Dörr
Rolf
R
Praxisklinik Herz und Gefässe, Dresden, Germany. doerr@praxisklinik-dresden.de
D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015897:Comorbidity; D001026:Coronary Artery Bypass / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D003324:Coronary Artery Disease / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000601:surgery*; D048909:Diabetes Complications / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods; D012307:Risk Factors
Eur Heart J. 2004 Nov;25(22):1990-7
15541834
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Dec 19;48(12):2584-91
17174201
N Engl J Med. 2001 Apr 12;344(15):1117-24
11297702
JAMA. 2009 Apr 15;301(15):1547-55
19366774
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Feb 2;55(5):432-40
20117456
Heart. 2006 May;92(5):650-7
16251229
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 Aug;34(2):476-85
10440162
Herz. 2007 Jun;32(4):296-300
17607536
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Jan 1;73(1):50-8
19089938
Herz. 2004 Aug;29(5):551-5
15340742
Lancet. 2002 Sep 28;360(9338):965-70
12383664
N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct 1;361(14):1407; author reply 1409-10
19797290
Circulation. 2005 Oct 18;112(16):2397-402
16230496
Eur Heart J. 2004 Nov;25(21):1880-90
15522466
Lancet. 1995 Nov 4;346(8984):1179-84
7475656
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jun 11;360(24):2503-15
19502645
Herz. 2008 Apr;33(3):196-205
18568314
Eur Heart J. 2007 Jan;28(1):88-136
17220161
Circulation. 2004 Mar 9;109(9):1114-20
14993134
Herz. 2009 Feb;34(1):21-9
19214406
Lancet. 2007 Sep 15;370(9591):937-48
17869634
Eur Heart J. 2005 Apr;26(8):804-47
15769784
N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 25;335(4):217-25
8657237
Circulation. 1997 Sep 16;96(6):1761-9
9323059
Herz. 2008 Apr;33(3):206-10
18568315
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Mar 16;55(11):1076-9
20079595
N Engl J Med. 2002 Jun 6;346(23):1773-80
12050336
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008 May;135(5):1047-53
18455583
N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 8;356(10):998-1008
17296824
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Apr;35(5):1122-9
10758950
Circulation. 2003 Jun 17;107(23):2900-7
12771008
Circulation. 2009 Dec 22;120(25):2529-40
19920001
Eur Heart J. 2006 Apr;27(8):905-12
16087647
Circulation. 2004 Feb 24;109(7):867-73
14757691
Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Oct;86(4):1181-8
18805157
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Mar 16;55(11):1067-75
20079596
Herz. 2004 Aug;29(5):556-61
15340743
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Mar 16;55(11):1093-101
20171036
N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 5;360(10):961-72
19228612
Herz. 2006 May;31(3):240-5
16770561
Eur Heart J. 2006 Dec;27(24):2969-74
17090612
Am Heart J. 2008 Oct;156(4):728-35
18926154
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Dec 9;52(24):1957-67
19055986
N Engl J Med. 1994 Oct 20;331(16):1044-50
8090163
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004 Dec;52(6):349-55
15573276
EuroIntervention. 2005 Aug;1(2):219-27
19758907
N Engl J Med. 1994 Oct 20;331(16):1037-43
8090162
Clin Res Cardiol. 2006 Jan;95 Suppl 1:i7-13
16598552
Herz. 2008 Apr;33(3):212-21
18568316