Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in United States veterans with diabetes.

Kamalesh M, Sharp TG, Tang XC, Shunk K, Ward HB, Walsh J, King S, Colling C, Moritz T, Stroupe K, Reda D, VA CARDS Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in United States veterans with diabetes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013 Feb 26; 61(8):808-16.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the optimal coronary revascularization strategy in patients with diabetes with severe coronary disease. BACKGROUND: Although subgroup analyses from large trials, databases, and meta-analyses have found better survival for patients with diabetes with complex coronary artery disease when treated with surgery, a randomized trial comparing interventions exclusively with drug-eluting stents and surgery in patients with diabetes with high-risk coronary artery disease has not yet been reported. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter study, 198 eligible patients with diabetes with severe coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 97) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (n = 101) and followed for at least 2 years. The primary outcome measure was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction or death. Secondary outcome measures included all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: The study was stopped because of slow recruitment after enrolling only 25% of the intended sample size, leaving it severely underpowered for the primary composite endpoint of death plus nonfatal myocardial infarction (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.47 to 1.71). However, after a mean follow-up period of 2 years, all-cause mortality was 5.0% for CABG and 21% for PCI (hazard ratio: 0.30; 95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.80), while the risk for nonfatal myocardial infarction was 15% for CABG and 6.2% for PCI (hazard ratio: 3.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.07 to 10.30). CONCLUSIONS: This study was severely underpowered for its primary endpoint, and therefore no firm conclusions about the comparative effectiveness of CABG and PCI are possible. There were interesting differences in the components of the primary endpoint. However, the confidence intervals are very large, and the findings must be viewed as hypothesis generating only. (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes; NCT00326196).