Coronary Intervention in the Chronic Kidney Disease, Diabetic and Elderly Populations

  • Sami Omar
  • Osama Alsanjari
  • Adam de BelderEmail author


Vaccinations, nutritional and medical advances have increased the longevity of life—the proportion of octogenarians is expected to triple by 2050. This has opened a new chapter in clinical cardiology—angina management of the very elderly is now daily clinical fodder. Nearly a quarter of the patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and undergoing angiography will have diabetes mellitus (DM). With the advent of poor lifestyle choices such as unhealthy diets and reduction in exercise, DM is likely to increase further. Chronic kidney disease (CKD), defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, is a recognized global health problem (Zimmet et al., Nat Rev Endocrinol 12:616–622, 2016) and is strongly associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. In 2014 CKD was estimated to have a prevalence of 6.1% of the population in England and about 10% of the population in the USA. CKD is frequently encountered in ACS patients, with a prevalence of 30.5% in those presenting with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 42.9% with a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.


Octogenarian Chronic kidney disease Diabetes mellitus Estimated glomerular filtration rate Acute coronary syndrome Percutaneous coronary intervention Contrast-induced nephropathy Vascular calcification 


  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in aging—United States and worldwide. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52(6):101–4, 106.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rich MW. Epidemiology, clinical features, and prognosis of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly. Am J Geriatr Cardiol. 2006;15(1):7–11. quiz 12PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kozlov KL, Bogachev AA. Coronary revascularization in the elderly with stable angina. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2015;12(5):555–68.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith SC Jr, et al. Prevention conference VI: diabetes and cardiovascular disease: writing group VI: revascularization in diabetic patients. Circulation. 2002;105(18):e165–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zimmet P, et al. Diabetes mellitus statistics on prevalence and mortality: facts and fallacies. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2016;12(10):616–22.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Couser WG, et al. The contribution of chronic kidney disease to the global burden of major noncommunicable diseases. Kidney Int. 2011;80(12):1258–70.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis, Consortium, et al. Association of estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in general population cohorts: a collaborative meta-analysis. Lancet. 2010;375(9731):2073–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    England PH. Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) prevalence model – YHPHO. 2014.
  9. 9.
    Promotion, N.C.f.C.D.P.a.H. National chronic kidney disease fact sheet. 2014.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fox CS, et al. Use of evidence-based therapies in short-term outcomes of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with chronic kidney disease: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network registry. Circulation. 2010;121(3):357–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Linden T, et al. Visual neglect and cognitive impairment in elderly patients late after stroke. Acta Neurol Scand. 2005;111(3):163–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deal JA, et al. Hearing impairment and incident dementia and cognitive decline in older adults: the health ABC study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017;72(5):703–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lo Coco D, Lopez G, Corrao S. Cognitive impairment and stroke in elderly patients. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2016;12:105–16.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaehler J, Meinertz T, Hamm CW. Coronary interventions in the elderly. Heart. 2006;92(8):1167–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(20):2501–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Boer SP, et al. Mortality and morbidity reduction by primary percutaneous coronary intervention is independent of the patient's age. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(3):324–31.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Umachandran V, et al. The perception of angina in diabetes: relation to somatic pain threshold and autonomic function. Am Heart J. 1991;121(6 Pt 1):1649–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Szummer K, et al. Relation between renal function, presentation, use of therapies and in-hospital complications in acute coronary syndrome: data from the SWEDEHEART register. J Intern Med. 2010;268(1):40–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herzog CA, et al. Clinical characteristics of dialysis patients with acute myocardial infarction in the United States: a collaborative project of the United States Renal Data System and the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. 2007;116(13):1465–72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Authors/Task Force, members, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014;35(37):2541–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newby LK, et al. ACCF 2012 expert consensus document on practical clinical considerations in the interpretation of troponin elevations: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation task force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(23):2427–63.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Group, N.W, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines: use of cardiac troponin and B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide for etiologies other than acute coronary syndromes and heart failure. Clin Chem. 2007;53(12):2086–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stacy SR, et al. Role of troponin in patients with chronic kidney disease and suspected acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(7):502–12.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hannan EL, et al. Appropriateness of coronary revascularization for patients without acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(21):1870–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Graham MM, et al. Quality of life after coronary revascularization in the elderly. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(14):1690–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cohen DJ, et al. Quality of life after PCI with drug-eluting stents or coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):1016–26.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dacey LJ, et al. Long-term survival after surgery versus percutaneous intervention in octogenarians with multivessel coronary disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84(6):1904–11. discussion 1904-11PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coca SG, et al. Underrepresentation of renal disease in randomized controlled trials of cardiovascular disease. JAMA. 2006;296(11):1377–84.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Charytan D, Kuntz RE. The exclusion of patients with chronic kidney disease from clinical trials in coronary artery disease. Kidney Int. 2006;70(11):2021–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Investigators T. Trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary-artery disease (TIME): a randomized trial. Lancet. 2001;358(9286):951–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alexander KP, et al. Outcomes of cardiac surgery in patients age ≥80 years: results from the National Cardiovascular Network. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35(3):731–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aronson D, Bloomgarden Z, Rayfield EJ. Potential mechanisms promoting restenosis in diabetic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27(3):528–35.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    West NE, et al. Clinical and angiographic predictors of restenosis after stent deployment in diabetic patients. Circulation. 2004;109(7):867–73.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Servi S, et al. Relationship between diabetes, platelet reactivity, and the SYNTAX score to one-year clinical outcome in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(3):312–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eckel RH, et al. Prevention conference VI: diabetes and cardiovascular disease: writing group II: pathogenesis of atherosclerosis in diabetes. Circulation. 2002;105(18):e138–43.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Holmes DR Jr, et al. Restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA): a report from the PTCA Registry of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Am J Cardiol. 1984;53(12):77C–81C.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mak KH, Faxon DP. Clinical studies on coronary revascularization in patients with type 2 diabetes. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(12):1087–103.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schenker MP, et al. Interrelation of coronary calcification, myocardial ischemia, and outcomes in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease: a combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography study. Circulation. 2008;117(13):1693–700.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Abdel-Wahab M, et al. High-speed rotational atherectomy before paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in complex calcified coronary lesions: the randomized ROTAXUS (Rotational Atherectomy Prior to Taxus Stent Treatment for Complex Native Coronary Artery Disease) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(1):10–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parikh K, et al. Safety and feasibility of orbital atherectomy for the treatment of calcified coronary lesions: the ORBIT I trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81(7):1134–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cockburn J, et al. Contemporary clinical outcomes of patients treated with or without rotational coronary atherectomy—an analysis of the UK central cardiac audit database. Int J Cardiol. 2014;170(3):381–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Charytan DM, et al. Angiographic characteristics of coronary arterial segments progressing to myocardial infarction in patients with and without chronic kidney disease. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2013;17(2):232–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu Y, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion improved prognosis in patients with renal insufficiency at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21426.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McMurray JJ, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the heart failure association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(14):1787–847.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chrischilles EA, et al. Association between preadmission functional status and use and effectiveness of secondary prevention medications in elderly survivors of acute myocardial infarction. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(3):526–35.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wright RS, et al. Acute myocardial infarction and renal dysfunction: a high-risk combination. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(7):563–70.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Keough-Ryan TM, et al. Outcomes of acute coronary syndrome in a large Canadian cohort: impact of chronic renal insufficiency, cardiac interventions, and anemia. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46(5):845–55.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Berger AK, Duval S, Krumholz HM. Aspirin, beta-blocker, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with end-stage renal disease and an acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(2):201–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    de Lemos JA, et al. Early intensive vs a delayed conservative simvastatin strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes: phase Z of the A to Z trial. JAMA. 2004;292(11):1307–16.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 1994;344(8934):1383–9.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Holdaas H, et al. Effect of fluvastatin on cardiac outcomes in renal transplant recipients: a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2003;361(9374):2024–31.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Baigent C, et al. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (study of heart and renal protection): a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9784):2181–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fellstrom BC, et al. Rosuvastatin and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing hemodialysis. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1395–407.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lim SY, et al. Effect on short- and long-term major adverse cardiac events of statin treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction and renal dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2012;109(10):1425–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    O’Gara PT, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2013;127(4):e362–425.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jneid H, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2007 guideline and replacing the 2011 focused update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(7):645–81.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ahmed A, et al. A propensity score analysis of the impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on long-term survival of older adults with heart failure and perceived contraindications. Am Heart J. 2005;149(4):737–43.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Antithrombotic Trialists C. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002;324(7329):71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yusuf S, et al. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(7):494–502.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Best PJ, et al. The efficacy and safety of short- and long-term dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with mild or moderate chronic kidney disease: results from the clopidogrel for the Reduction of Events During Observation (CREDO) trial. Am Heart J. 2008;155(4):687–93.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sabatine MS, et al. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin and fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(12):1179–89.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wiviott SD, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(20):2001–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wallentin L, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(11):1045–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Marso SP, et al. Optimizing the percutaneous interventional outcomes for patients with diabetes mellitus: results of the EPISTENT (evaluation of platelet IIb/IIIa inhibitor for stenting trial) diabetic sub study. Circulation. 1999;100(25):2477–84.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hillegass WB. Diabetes is not sufficient justification for IIb/IIIa use in percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86(3):376–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Samama MM, Gerotziafas GT. Evaluation of the pharmacological properties and clinical results of the synthetic pentasaccharide (fondaparinux). Thromb Res. 2003;109(1):1–11.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes, Investigators, et al. Comparison of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(14):1464–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    James MT, et al. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury and risk of adverse clinical outcomes after coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(1):37–43.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Budano C, et al. Impact of contrast-induced acute kidney injury definition on clinical outcomes. Am Heart J. 2011;161(5):963–71.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mehran R, et al. A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(7):1393–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    McCullough PA, et al. Contrast-Induced Nephropathy (CIN) consensus working panel: executive summary. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2006;7(4):177–97.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Narula A, et al. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the HORIZONS-AMI substudy. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(23):1533–40.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pezeshgi A, et al. Evaluation of the protective effect of N-acetylcysteine on contrast media nephropathy. J Renal Inj Prev. 2015;4(4):109–12.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Marenzi G, et al. N-acetylcysteine and contrast-induced nephropathy in primary angioplasty. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(26):2773–82.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Aslanger E, et al. Intrarenal application of N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy in primary angioplasty. Coron Artery Dis. 2012;23(4):265–70.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Jurado-Roman A, et al. Role of hydration in contrast-induced nephropathy in patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(9):1174–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Nijssen EC, Rennenberg RJ, Nelemans PJ, et al. Prophylactic hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (AMACING): a prospective, randomized, phase 3, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10076):1312–22. Scholar
  78. 78.
    Khanal S, et al. Statin therapy reduces contrast-induced nephropathy: an analysis of contemporary percutaneous interventions. Am J Med. 2005;118(8):843–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jo SH, et al. Renal toxicity evaluation and comparison between visipaque (iodixanol) and hexabrix (ioxaglate) in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing coronary angiography: the RECOVER study: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(5):924–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kaye DM, et al. Reducing iodinated contrast volume by manipulating injection pressure during coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83(5):741–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Effect of the AVERT™ contrast modulation system on contrast dose reduction and acute kidney injury after coronary angiography and PCI, in EuroPCR. Paris. 2016.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nie B, et al. A prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial on the efficacy and cardiorenal safety of iodixanol vs. iopromide in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72(7):958–65.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ali ZA, et al. Imaging- and physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention without contrast administration in advanced renal failure: a feasibility, safety, and outcome study. Eur Heart J. 2016;7(40):3090–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Moussa I, et al. Impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcome in diabetic patients: a SIRIUS (SIRolImUS-coated Bx velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) sub study. Circulation. 2004;109(19):2273–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hermiller JB, et al. Outcomes with the polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent in patients with diabetes mellitus: the TAXUS-IV trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(8):1172–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Dibra A, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents to prevent restenosis in diabetic patients. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(7):663–70.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kaul U, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting versus everolimus-eluting coronary stents in diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(18):1709–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Park KW, et al. Everolimus-eluting Xience v/Promus versus zotarolimus-eluting resolute stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(5):471–81.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Won H, et al. Neointimal response to second-generation drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients with de-novo coronary lesions: intravascular ultrasound study. Coron Artery Dis. 2015;26(3):212–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    de Belder A, et al. A prospective randomized trial of everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in octogenarians: the XIMA trial (Xience or Vision Stents for the Management of Angina in the Elderly). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(14):1371–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Urban P, et al. Polymer-free drug-coated coronary stents in patients at high bleeding risk. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2038–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Varenne O, et al. The SYNERGY II Everolimus elutiNg stent In patients Older than 75 years undergoing coronary Revascularization associated with a short dual antiplatelet therapy (SENIOR) trial: rationale and design of a large-scale randomized multicentre study. EuroIntervention. 2017;12(13):1614–22.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Bach RG, et al. The effect of routine, early invasive management on outcome for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(3):186–95.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Barywani SB, et al. Acute coronary syndrome in octogenarians: association between percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term mortality. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:1547–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Fach A, et al. Comparison of outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention analyzed by age groups (<75, 75 to 85, and >85 years); (Results from the Bremen STEMI Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2015;116(12):1802–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Rosengren A, et al. Age, clinical presentation, and outcome of acute coronary syndromes in the Euroheart acute coronary syndrome survey. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(7):789–95.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Tegn N, Abdelnoor M, Aaberge L, et al. for the After Eighty study investigators. Invasive versus conservative strategy in patients aged 80 years or older with non-ST-elevstion myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris (after eighty study): an open-label randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1057–65.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Mehta SR, et al. Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA. 2005;293(23):2908–17.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Banning AP, 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(11):1067–75.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Ritsinger V, et al. High event rate after a first percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes mellitus: results from the Swedish coronary angiography and angioplasty registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(6):e002328.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Piccolo R, et al. Effect of diabetes mellitus on frequency of adverse events in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118(3):345–52.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Influence of diabetes on 5-year mortality and morbidity in a randomized trial comparing CABG and PTCA in patients with multivessel disease: the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). Circulation. 1997;96(6):1761–9.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Herbison P, Wong CK. Has the difference in mortality between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting in people with heart disease and diabetes changed over the years? A systematic review and meta-regression. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e010055.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kapur A, 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(5):432–40.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ben-Gal Y, et al. Surgical versus percutaneous coronary revascularization for multivessel disease in diabetic patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome: analysis from the Acute Catheterization and Early Intervention Triage Strategy trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(6):e002032.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Bansilal S, et al. The Future REvascularization Evaluation in patients with Diabetes mellitus: Optimal management of Multivessel disease (FREEDOM) trial: clinical and angiographic profile at study entry. Am Heart J. 2012;164(4):591–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Farooq V, et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):639–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sussex Cardiac Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS TrustBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations