PCI vs. CABG in left main coronary disease patients with and without diabetes—a pooled analysis of 4 trials

Study Design and Population: This research pooled individual patient data from four randomized clinical trials (SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL), comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 4393 patients with left main coronary artery disease. The trials included both patients with and without diabetes, allowing for a comparative analysis of outcomes based on the revascularization method and the presence of diabetes.

Main Findings: Patients with diabetes exhibited higher rates of 5-year mortality, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization compared to those without diabetes. However, mortality rates following PCI vs. CABG were similar in diabetic (15.3% vs. 14.1%, respectively) and non-diabetic patients (9.7% vs. 8.9%, respectively). PCI was associated with a lower risk of stroke within the first year post-operation across all patients. Notably, diabetic patients underwent higher rates of spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization after PCI compared to CABG, with a more significant absolute excess risk observed beyond the first year compared to non-diabetic patients.

Implications for Practice: For patients with left main disease deemed suitable for either PCI or CABG, diabetes status significantly influences long-term outcomes, including death and cardiovascular events. While PCI offers a lower early risk of stroke, it is associated with increased risks of spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization, particularly in diabetic patients. These findings underscore the importance of considering patient-specific factors, such as diabetes status, in choosing between PCI and CABG for left main coronary artery disease revascularization.

Reference

Prakriti Gaba et al. (2024). Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Disease With or Without Diabetes: Findings From a Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials. Circulation, 0. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.065571. Access the study here: Link