Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the long-term clinical outcomes in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (ITDM) revascularized by either coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are still controversial. We sought to compare the long-term (≥1 year) adverse clinical outcomes in patients with ITDM who underwent revascularization by either CABG or PCI. METHODS: Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing the long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ITDM and non-ITDM revascularized by either CABG or PCI were searched from electronic databases. Data for patients with ITDM were carefully retrieved. Odd Ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was used to express the pooled effect on discontinuous variables and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 10 studies, with a total of 1297 patients with ITDM were analyzed (639 patients from the CABG group and 658 patients from the PCI group). CABG was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate compared to PCI with OR: 0.59, 95 % CI 0.42-0.85; P = 0.004. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events as well as repeated revascularization were also significantly lower in the CABG group with OR: 0.51, 95 % CI 0.27-0.99; P = 0.03 and OR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.24-0.49; P < 0.00001 respectively. However, compared to PCI, the rate of stroke was higher in the CABG group with OR: 1.41, 95 % CI 0.64-3.09; P = 0.40, but this result was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CABG was associated with significantly lower long-term adverse clinical outcomes compared to PCI in patients with ITDM. However, due to an insignificantly higher rate of stroke in the CABG group, further researches with a larger number of randomized patients are required to completely solve this issue.

Reduction in risk of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus by enhanced external counterpulsation.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients with combined chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) by comparing the changes in renal function-related indicators in patients before and after coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: There were 230 subjects consecutively included in the study. Of these, 30 cases with DM underwent rehydration therapy, and 200 cases underwent EECP therapy in addition to rehydration therapy, comprising 53 patients with DM and 147 patients without. All the patients were tested to measure the renal function indicators before and after CAG/PCI. Results: The postoperative results of blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (Scr), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), B2 microglobulin, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in the three groups showed a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). After EECP therapy, patients with DM showed a significant decrease in BUN (9.1 ± 4.2 vs. 7.2 ± 3.0, t = 3.899, P < 0.001) and a significant increase in eGFR (41.5 ± 12.7 vs. 44.0 ± 15.6, t = -2.031, P = 0.047), while the patients without DM showed a more significant difference (P < 0.001). Patients with DM showed a lower percentage of elevated Scr (66.7% vs. 43.4%, P = 0.042), a higher percentage of elevated eGFR (30.0% vs. 52.8%, P = 0.044), and a lower incidence of CIN (16.7% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.042) after EECP therapy. Conclusion: Treatment with EECP can reduce Scr in patients with combined CKD and DM post CAG/PCI, increase eGFR, and decrease the incidence of CIN.

Is There Any Significant Difference in Stent Thrombosis Between Sirolimus and Paclitaxel Eluting Stents?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Several meta-analyses have shown no significant difference in stent thrombosis (ST) between sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES). However, other meta-analyses have found SES to be superior to PES. Therefore, to solve this issue, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes between SES and PES during a follow-up period of about 1 or more years.We have searched Medline and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SES with PES. These RCTs have been carefully analyzed and then different types of ST including ST defined by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC), acute ST, late and very late ST have all been considered as the clinical endpoints in this study. A follow-up period of about 1 year, between 1 and 2 years as well as a longer follow-up period between 1 and 5 years have been considered. Data were retrieved and combined by means of a fixed-effect model because of a lower heterogeneity observed among the results. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.Twenty-nine studies from 19 RCTs comprising of 16,724 patients (8115 patients in the SES group and 8609 patients in the PES group) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences in ST have been observed between SES and PES. Results were as follow: definite ST with OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.18, P = 0.36; probable ST with OR:0.72; 95% CI: 0.42-1.21, P = 0.21; definite, probable and/or possible ST with OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.17, P = 0.57; acute ST with OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.38-2.56, P = 0.98; subacute ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.25; early ST with OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.53-1.25, P = 0.34; late ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.39-1.34, P = 0.30; very late ST with OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72-1.44, P = 0.92; and any ST with OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.69-1.07, P = 0.18. Long-term ST between 1 and 5 years with OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.71-1.22, P = 0.60 was also not significantly different.No significant difference in ST has been observed between patients treated with either SES or PES. Hence SES and PES can both be considered almost equally effective.

Impact of Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors on Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 100 Studies.

Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome can easily give rise to coronary heart disease (CHD). However, due to the existence of the so-called "obesity paradox" and "smoking paradox," the impact of these modifiable cardiovascular risk factors on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still not clear. Therefore, in order to solve this issue, we aim to compare mortality between patients with low and high modifiable cardiovascular risk factors after PCI. Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies related to these modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. Reported outcome was all-cause mortality after PCI. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 100 studies consisting of 884,190 patients (330,068 and 514,122 with high and low cardiovascular risk factors respectively) have been included in this meta-analysis. Diabetes mellitus was associated with a significantly higher short and long-term mortality with RR 2.11; 95% CI: (1.91-2.33) and 1.85; 95% CI: (1.66-2.06), respectively, after PCI. A significantly higher long-term mortality in the hypertensive and metabolic syndrome patients with RR 1.45; 95% CI: (1.24-1.69) and RR 1.29; 95% CI: (1.11-1.51), respectively, has also been observed. However, an unexpectedly, significantly lower mortality risk was observed among the smokers and obese patients. Certain modifiable cardiovascular risk subgroups had a significantly higher impact on mortality after PCI. However, mortality among the obese patients and the smokers showed an unexpected paradox after coronary intervention.