Current Cardiology Reports

, 15:323 | Cite as

Percutaneous Versus Surgical Interventions for Coronary Artery Disease in Those with Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease (S Malik, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disorder of multiple etiologies that causes long-term damage of various organs including the cardiovascular system. A consistent observation shows that DM amplifies the risk of cardiovascular events by 4- to 6-fold. Since coronary artery disease (CAD) in diabetic patients exhibits diffuse and accelerated lesions, invasive revascularization continues to be a challenge and has worse outcomes than patients without DM. Owing to the pathogenesis of DM and the presence of severe endothelial dysfunction, investigators have been trying to find new treatment modalities that could target the treatment of the disease rather than the treatment of the lesion. Until new treatment modalities are proven and gain acceptance, invasive revascularization remains to be the choice of treatment in such patients. The focus of this review is to compare the results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of stable CAD in patients with DM.

Keywords

Percutaneous coronary intervention PCI Surgical intervention Coronary bypass surgery CABG Diabetes mellitus Coronary artery disease Treatment Ischemic heart disease Revascularization External counterpulsation EECP Guideline committee Multivessel disease Guidelines 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Cook S, Windecker S. Surgical vs percutaneous revascularization of coronary artery disease in diabetic patients. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;23:317–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Creager M, Luscher TF, Cosentino F, Beckman JA. Diabetes and vascular disease: pathophysiology, clinical consequences, and medical therapy: Part I. Circulation. 2003;108:1527–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biondi-Zoccai GG, Abbate A, Liuzzo G, Biasucci LM. Atherothrombosis, inflammation and diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1071–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferreiro JL, Angiolillo DJ. Diabetes and antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome. Circulation. 2011;123:798–813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amos AF, McCarty DJ, Zimmet P. The rising global burden of diabetes and its complications: estimates and projections to the year 2010. Diabet Med. 1997;14 Suppl 5:S1–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    King H, Aubert RE, Herman WH. Global burden of diabetes, 1995–2025: prevalence, numerical estimates, and projections. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1414–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaw JE, Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ. Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;87:4–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Diabetes Association. National Diabetes Fact Sheet, Diabetes Statistics. Available at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics.
  9. 9.
    American Diabetes association. Consensus statement: role of cardiovascular risk factors in prevention and treatment of macrovascular disease in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1993;16:72–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luscher TF, Creager MA, Beckman JA, Cosentino F. Diabetes and vascular disease: pathophysiology, clinical consequences, and medical therapy: Part II. Circulation. 2003;108:1655–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schramm TK, Gislason GH, Kober L, et al. Diabetes patients requiring glucose-lowering therapy and non-diabetics with a prior myocardial infarction carry the same cardiovascular risk: a population study of 3.3 million people. Circulation. 2008;117:1945–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• Soran O. (2011). The role of enhanced external counterpulsation therapy in the management of coronary artery disease, angina pectoris. , ed. ISBN: 978–953–307–359–0, InTech, Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/books/angina-pectoris/the-role-of-enhanced-external-counterpulsation-therapy-in-the-management-of-coronary-artery-disease. This book chapter reviews the role of EECP Therapy in CAD and it`s mechanism of action which is different than invasive revascularization. The author underlined the need to initiate a randomized clinical trial to ascertain the efficacy of EECP therapy combined with drug therapy as a first line treatment before any invasive revascularization in selected group of patients with CAD.
  13. 13.
    Manchanda A, Soran O. Enhanced external counterpulsation and future directions: step beyond medical management for patients with angina and heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1523–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Soran O, Manchanda A, Schueler S. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease: a current perspective. Interactive CardioVasc Thorac Surg. 2009;8:666–72. This review article provides an evidence-based perspective on PCI vs CABG in multivessel disease. Since the clinical outcomes differ according to the treatment choice, authors suggest to replacemultivessel diseaseterminology with the number of diseased vessel; such as 2VD or 3VD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lincoff AM. Important triad in cardiovascular medicine: diabetes, coronary intervention, and platelet glycoprotein IIbyIIIa receptor blockade. Circulation. 2003;107:1556–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taggart DP. Coronary artery bypasses graft vs percutaneous coronary angioplasty: CABG on the rebound? Curr Opinion Cardiol. 2007;22:517–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP, et al. Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation. 2004;109:2290–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niles NW, McGrath PD, Malenka D, et al. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. Survival of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease after surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of a large regional prospective study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:1008–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pell JP, Pell AC, Jeffrey RR, et al. Comparison of survival following coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic and nondiabetic patients: retrospective cohort study of 6320 procedures. Diabet Med. 2004;21:790–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bair TL, Muhlestein JB, May HT, et al. Surgical revascularization is associated with improved long-term outcomes compared with percutaneous stenting in most subgroups of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the Intermountain Heart Registry. Circulation. 2007;116(11 Suppl):I226–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Domburg RT, Takkenberg JJ, Noordzij LJ, et al. Late outcome after stenting or coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: a single center matched-propensity controlled cohort study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:1563–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Booth J, Clayton T, Pepper J, et al. randomized controlled trial of coronary artery bypass surgery vs percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Six-year follow-up from the stent or surgery trial (SoS). Circulation. 2008;118:381–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graftsurgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet. 1994;344:563–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoffman SN, TenBrook JA, Wolf MP, et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: 1- to 8-year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1293–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mercado N, Wijns W, Serruys PW, et al. One-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery vs percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting for multisystem disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized clinical trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;130:512–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting vs bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:575–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rodriguez A, Boullon F, Perez-Balino N, et al. Argentine randomized trial of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty vs coronary artery surgery in multivessel disease (ERACI): in-hospital results and 1-year follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:1060–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    CABRI Trial Participants. First year results of CABRI (Coronary Angioplasty Versus Bypass Revascularisation Investigation). Lancet. 1995;346:1179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    King III SB, Lembo NJ, Wientraub WS, et al. A randomized trial comparing coronary angioplasty with coronary bypass surgery: emory angioplasty vs surgery trial (EAST). N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1044–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rodriguez AE, Baldi J, Pereira CF. ERACI II Investigators. Five-year follow-up of the argentine randomized trial of coronary angioplasty with stenting vs coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:582–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brooks MM, Jones RH, Bach RG, et al. Predictors of mortality and mortality from cardiac causes in the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation (BARI) randomized trial and registry. For the BARI Investigators. Circulation. 2000;101:2682–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hamm CW, Reimers J, Ischinger T, et al. A randomized study of coronary angioplasty compared with bypass surgery in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease. German Angioplasty Bypass Surgery Investigation (GABI). N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1037–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    •• Daemen J, Boersma E, Flather M, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and coronary artery bypass surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis with 5-year patient-level data from the ARTS, ERACIII, MASS-II, and SoS trials. Circulation. 2008;118:1146–54. This is a randomized, controlled trial comparing PCI with CABG for patients with multivessel disease. Initial results at a median follow-up of 2 years showed a survival advantage for patients randomized to CABG. At a median follow-up of 6 years, a continuing survival advantage was observed for patients managed with CABG.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goy JJ, Kaufmann U, Hurni M. SIMA Investigators. 10-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing bare-metal stenting with internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis the SIMA (Stenting vs Internal Mammary Artery grafting) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:815–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goy JJ, Eeckhout E, Moret C, et al. Five-year outcome in patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis treated by angioplasty or left internal mammary artery grafting. A prospective trial. Circulation. 1999;99:3255–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carrié D, Elbaz M, Puel J, et al. Five-year outcome after coronary angioplasty vs bypass surgery in multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the French Monocentric Study. Circulation. 1997;96((Suppl):II):1–6.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J, et al. Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME). Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: a multicenter, randomized trial. Investigators of the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 385, the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:555–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hueb W, Lopes NH, Gersh BJ, et al. Five-year follow-up of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115:1082–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    •• Banning AP, Westaby S, Morice MC, et al. Diabetic and nondiabetic patients with left main and/or 3-vessel coronary artery disease: comparison of outcomes with cardiac surgery and paclitaxel-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1067–75. Results of this trial showed that PCI with TAXUS (paclitaxel-eluting) stenting was inferior to CABG with respect to the primary composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization among patients with left main and or 3 vessel disease. The pre-specified DM-subgroup analysis showed that, driven by an increased rate of repeat revascularization, the 1-year death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization rate was significantly higher among DM patients treated with DES than with CABG.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    .•• Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik I, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients.1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:432–40. At 1 year, the primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke did not differ among the groups while the need of repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Al-Ruzzeh S, George S, Bustami M, et al. Effect of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery on clinical, angiographic, neurocognitive, and quality of life outcomes: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;332:1365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hannan EL, Wu C, Smith CR, et al. Off-pump vs on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: differences in short-term outcomes and in long-term mortality and need for subsequent revascularization. Circulation. 2007;116:1145–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim WS, Lee J, Lee YT, et al. Total arterial revascularization in triple-vessel disease with off-pump and aortic no-touch technique. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:1861–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Navia D, Vrancic M, Vaccarino G, et al. Total arterial off-pump coronary revascularization using bilateral internal thoracic arteries in triple-vessel disease: surgical technique and clinical outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:524–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yan Q, Changsheng M, Shaoping N, et al. Percutaneous treatment with drug-eluting stent vs bypass surgery in patients suffering from chronic stable angina with multivessel disease involving significant proximal stenosis in left anterior descending artery. Circ J. 2009;73:1848–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cheng CI, Lee FY, Chang JP, et al. Long-term outcomes of intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: coronary stenting vs coronary artery bypass grafting. Circ J. 2009;73:705–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    •• Briguori C, Condorelli G, Airoldi F, et al. Comparison of coronary drug-eluting stents vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:779–84. Results showed the superiority of OPCAB at 1-year follow-up compared with DES.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    •• Yamagata K, Kataoka Y, Kokubu N, et al. A 3-year clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention using sirolimus–eluting stent and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of diabetic patients with multivessel disease. Circ J. 2010;74:671–8. Diabetic patients with multivessel disease were examined (DES vs OPCAB). During the follow-up period (mean: 42 ± 8 months), the cumulative MACCE was similar between the 2 groups. However, the rate of revascularization was significantly higher in the DES group than the OPCAB group.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Weintraub WS, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Weiss JM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. N Engl J Med. 2012;19(366):1467–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yang T-H, Park S-W, Hong M-K, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on angiographic and clinical outcomes in the drug-eluting stents era. Am J Cardiol. 2005;96:1389–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    •• Voudris V, Karyofillis P, Thomopoulou S, et al. Long-term results after drug-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients according to diabetic treatment. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2011;52:15–22. This study assessed the long-term results after DES implantation in non insulin-dependent diabetic patients compared with insulin-dependent patients. At 12-month follow-up no significant differences in the incidence of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction were observed, but target lesion revascularization and bypass surgery were more frequent in the insulin-dependent group.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sabaté M, Jiménez-Quevedo P, Angiolillo DJ, et al. Randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent vs standard stent for percutaneous coronary revascularization in diabetic patients: the diabetes and sirolimus-eluting stent (DIABETES) trial. Circulation. 2005;112:2175–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Boyden TF, Nallamothu BK, Moscucci M, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials of drug-eluting stents vs bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1399–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Scheen AJ, Warzée F, Legrand VMG. Drug-eluting stents: meta-analysis in diabetic patients. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:2167–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Morgan KP, Kapur A, Beatt KJ. Anatomy of coronary disease in diabetic patients: an explanation for poorer outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and potential target for intervention. Heart. 2004;90:732–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sowers JR, Epstein M. Diabetes mellitus and associated hypertension, vascular disease, and nephropathy. An update. Hypertension. 1995;26(6 Pt 1):869–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tesfamariam B. Free radicals in diabetic endothelial cell dysfunction. Free Radic Biol Med. 1994;16:383–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Umeda F, Inoguchi T, Nawata H, Umeda F, Inoguchi T, Nawata H. Reduced stimulatory activity on prostacyclin production by cultured endothelial cells in serum from aged and diabetic patients. Atherosclerosis. 1989;75:61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Betteridge DJ. Diabetic dyslipidemia. Am J Med. 1994;96:25S–31S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Creager MA, Cooke JP, Mendelsohn ME, et al. Impaired vasodilation of forearm resistance vessels in hypercholesterolemic humans. J Clin Invest. 1990;86:228–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Aronson D, Bloomgarden Z, Rayfield EJ. Potential mechanisms promoting restenosis in diabetic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:528–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kornowski R, Mintz GS, Kent KM, et al. Increased restenosis in diabetes mellitus after coronary interventions is due to exaggerated intimal hyperplasia. A serial intravascular ultra sound study. Circulation. 1997;95:1366–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lemos PA, Serruys PW, van Domburg RT, et al. Unrestricted utilization of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with conventional bare stent implantation in the “real world”: the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. Circulation. 2004;109:190–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dardas PS, Tsikaderis DD, Mezilis NE, Hatzimiltiadis S. Medium-term results from the clinical and angiographic follow-up of patients after angioplasty and implantation of sirolimus- drug eluting stents. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2005;46:117–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    •• Ortolani P, Balducelli M, Marzaroli P, et al. Two-year clinical outcomes with drug-eluting stents for diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions: results from a real-world multicenter registry. Circulation. 2008;117:923–30. This was a real-world multicenter registry, no benefit was demonstrated among insulin-dependent diabetic patients after DES implantation, whereas non- insulin-dependent diabetic patients showed substantial improvements in the 2-year relative risk of major adverse cardiac events and target vessel revascularization.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Moussa I, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al. Impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcome in diabetic patients: a SIRIUS (SIRolImUS- coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable a SIRIUS (SIRolImUS- coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable Stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) substudy. Circulation. 2004;109:2273–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Machecourt J, Danchin N, Lablanche JM, et al. Risk factors for diabetic and nondiabetic patients: the EVASTENT Matched-Cohort Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:501–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Natali A, Vichi S, Landi P, et al. Coronary atherosclerosis in type II diabetes: angiographic findings and clinical outcome. Diabetologia. 2000;43:632–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Iijima R, Ndrepepa G, Mehilli J, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on long-term outcomes in the drug-eluting stent era. Am Heart J. 2007;154:688–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    • Kirtane AJ, Ellis SG, Dawkins KD, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: pooled analysis from 5 randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:708–15. This is a pooled analysis of 5 randomized trials, where rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac and noncardiac death were similar for DES and BMS in insulin-dependent diabetic patients and noninsulin-dependent diabetic patients.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Park D-W, Flaherty JD, Davidson CJ, et al. Prognostic influence of diabetes mellitus on long-term clinical outcomes and stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent implantation in asian patients. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103:646–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    • Legrand VM, Garg S, Serruys PW, et al. Influence of age on the clinical outcomes of coronary revascularisation for the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions: sirolimus-eluting stent vs coronary artery bypass surgery and bare metal stent, insight from the multicentre randomized Arterial Revascularisation Therapy Study Part I (ARTS-I) and Part II (ARTS-II). EuroIntervention. 2011;6:838–45. Results of this study showed that diabetes was the strongest independent predictor of MACCE among PCI treated patients but didn't affect 3-year outcomes following CABG.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A, et al. Coronary artery stent. A rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1242–5.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Griffin SC, Barber JA, Manca A, et al. Cost effectiveness of clinically appropriate decisions on alternative treatments for angina pectoris: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2007;334:624–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Soran O, Feldman AM, Cohen HA. Oculostenotic reflex and iatrogenesis fulminans. Circulation. 2000;101:E198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UPMC, Presbyterian Hospital, PUH, University of Pittsburgh Heart and Vascular InstitutePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations