Effects of ß-blockers on all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

AIMS: To assess whether the use of beta-blockers influences mortality and the incidence of major cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes trial, we performed Cox proportional hazards analysis to assess the effects of ß-blockers on all-cause mortality in 2244 patients with type 2 diabetes who had stable CHD with and without a history of myocardial infarction (MI)/heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). RESULTS: All-cause mortality in patients with MI/HFrEF was significantly lower in those receiving ß-blockers than in those not receiving ß-blockers (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.98; P = .04), whereas that in patients without MI/HFrEF did not significantly differ (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76-1.32; P = .64). Among patients with MI/HFrEF, all-cause mortality in those who received intensive medical therapy alone for CHD was significantly lower in those on ß-blockers than in those not on ß-blockers (adjusted HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.88; P = .02); however, mortality in patients who received early revascularization for CHD was not significantly lower in those on ß-blockers (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40-1.65; P = .57). The risk of major cardiovascular events in patients without MI/HFrEF was not significantly different between those on and those not on ß-blocker treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes and CHD, the use of ß-blockers was effective in reducing all-cause mortality in those with MI/HFrEF but not in those without MI/HFrEF.

Do Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life Differ by the Number of Antianginals for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease? Insights from the BARI 2D Trial.

Medical therapy, including antianginal treatment, is the cornerstone in the management of stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, it remains unclear whether combining antianginal agents provides benefits beyond monotherapy in terms of quality of life (QoL) and cardiovascular outcomes. We used data from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial, which compared cardiovascular and QoL outcomes in patients with SIHD and diabetes mellitus randomized to revascularization with intensive medical therapy or intensive medical therapy alone. We categorized patients into 3 groups: ≥2 versus 1 versus 0 antianginals. We compared patient characteristics, QoL metrics, and cardiovascular end points at baseline and at 5 years, creating a multivariable model to adjust for key clinical confounders. Of 2,368 patients, 348 patients (14.7%) were on 0 antianginals, 1,020 patients (43.1%) were on 1 antianginal, and 1,000 patients (42.2%) were on ≥2 antianginals at baseline. The most common antianginal class was ß blockers. At baseline, patients on 0 antianginals had better QoL metrics (self-health score, Duke activity status index, and energy rating) than patients on ≥2 antianginals. However, at the 1-year follow-up, patients taking only 1 antianginal showed greater QoL improvement than those taking 0 antianginal, without any incremental benefit in QoL metrics seen in patients taking ≥2 antianginal agents, even after adjusting for multiple covariates such as age, heart failure, diabetes control, and myocardial jeopardy index. Lastly, at the 5-year follow-up, after adjustment, there were no differences in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or myocardial infarction between patients taking different numbers of antianginals. Adults on a single antianginal for SIHD and diabetes mellitus had similar or better improvements in QoL than those on 2 or more antianginal agents at 1 year of follow-up. These findings merit further research to better understand the impact of medical therapy intensity on QoL in patients with SIHD and associated co-morbidities.

Dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin monotherapy in diabetics with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing CABG is recommended to prevent recurrent ischemic events. The benefit of DAPT post-CABG in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utilization rate of DAPT and associated outcomes in patients with SIHD undergoing CABG via a secondary analysis of Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial data. METHODS: In a post-hoc, nonrandomized analysis from the BARI 2D trial, we compared patients receiving DAPT and aspirin monotherapy within 90 days post-randomization. The primary outcome was the risk adjusted 5-year composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. We analyzed patients assigned to prompt CABG treatment arm including both the insulin therapy assignments. RESULTS: Of 378 patients, within 90 days post-randomization, 59 (16%) patients received DAPT and 319 (84%) patients received aspirin alone. Cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the 5-year composite event of death, MI, and stroke between DAPT and monotherapy cohorts [13 (22.0%) vs. 61 (19.1%); adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56 to 2.00; P=0.86]. There also was no significant difference at 1 year in the composite event [6 (10.2%) vs. 30 (9.4%); HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.46 to 2.79; P=0.79]. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DAPT in patients with diabetes post-CABG in this cohort was low. Compared with aspirin monotherapy, no associated differences were observed in cardiovascular outcomes. Larger prospective studies are needed to further elucidate this observation.

Insulin provision therapy and mortality in older adults with diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease: Insights from BARI-2D trial.

IMPORTANCE: Optimal strategies for glucose control in very old adults with diabetes and stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of insulin provision (IP) therapy versus insulin sensitizing (IS) therapy for glycemic control in older (≥75years) and younger (<75years) adults with type II diabetes (DM) and SIHD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults enrolled in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) were studied. The BARI 2D study population (all with type II DM and SIHD) was randomized twice: (1) between revascularization plus intensive medical therapy versus intensive medical therapy alone, and (2) between IP versus IS therapies. The primary endpoint was all-cause-mortality over five-year follow-up. In this substudy outcomes related to IP vs. IS are assessed in relation to age. Adults aged ≥75years who received IP versus IS are compared to those <75years who received IP versus IS. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the effects of IP vs. IS on outcomes in the two age groups. RESULTS: 2368 subjects with SIHD and DM were enrolled in BARI 2D; 182 (8%) were ≥75years. Compared to younger subjects, the older cohort had lower BMI, higher diuretic use, worse kidney function, and increased history of heart failure. Within the older cohort, the IP and IS subgroups were similar in respect to baseline cardiovascular risk factors, medications, and coronary artery disease severity. During follow-up, the older subjects receiving IP therapy had higher cardiovascular mortality compared to those receiving IS therapy (16% vs. 11%, p=0.040). Using Cox proportional hazards analysis, the older IP subjects were at increased risk for all-cause-mortality (hazard ratio 1.89, CI 1.1-3.2, p=0.020). No mortality difference between IP and IS was observed in those <75years of age. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with diabetes and SIHD aged ≥75years, IP therapy may be associated with increased mortality compared to IS therapy. Additional studies are needed to further refine optimal treatment strategies for diabetes and SIHD in old age.

Controversies surrounding percutaneous coronary intervention in the diabetic patient.

Diabetic patients with coronary artery disease are common and complex, with an aggressive progression of atherosclerosis, increased rate of stent complications, and increased rates of incomplete revascularization in multivessel disease compared to non-diabetic patients. In this review, we first discuss the pathophysiologic elements of insulin resistance and presentations of coronary artery disease in diabetic patients. Next, we outline the evolution and present the data on revascularization strategies on diabetic patient outcomes. The overall conclusion of our review is that a strategy of complete and durable revascularization and guideline-directed medical therapy currently provides the best possible chance at closing the gap between outcomes in patients with and without diabetes.