Advertisement

Diabetes Therapy

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 2163–2171 | Cite as

Reassessing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Brief Updated Analytical Report (2015–2017)

  • Xia Dai
  • Zu-chun Luo
  • Lu Zhai
  • Wen-piao Zhao
  • Feng Huang
Open Access
Brief Report
  • 219 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in terms of adverse outcomes utilizing data from a recent (2015–2017) population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

An electronic search of recent studies (2015–2017) was carried out using ‘diabetes mellitus,’ ‘coronary artery bypass surgery,’ and ‘percutaneous coronary intervention’ as the main search terms. Uncomplicated T2DM patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), left main CAD, and multi-vessel disease were included. RevMan software (version 5.3) was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Among a total of 13,114 T2DM patients, CABG and PCI patients did not differ significantly in their rates of mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61–1.31; P = 0.57) and cardiac death (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78–1.30; P = 0.98). However, rates of major adverse events, repeat revascularization, and myocardial infarction were significantly higher in the PCI group. Stroke rates did not significantly differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

Mortality (1–5 years) did not significantly differ between the CABG and PCI patients with T2DM. However, rates of other major adverse events were significantly higher in the PCI patients, suggesting that CABG is more advantageous than PCI in patients with T2DM.

Keywords

Coronary artery bypass surgery Mortality Percutaneous coronary intervention Type 2 diabetes mellitus 

Introduction

Several concerns have been raised by recently published meta-analyses (2014–2015) comparing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). For example, Bangalore et al. [1] recently published the results of a network meta-analysis, which led them to conclude that mortality following CABG was similar to that following PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus. However, Toeg et al. found that conclusion to be highly problematic and pointed to the results of their own meta-analysis [2]; in response, Bangalore et al. [3] defended their results and pointed out certain limitations of Toeg et al.’s meta-analysis. Aside from this particular controversial issue, other meta-analyses in this field have also reached divergent conclusions [4, 5].

Given this controversy as well as recent developments in interventional cardiology and the recent introduction of new guidelines for antiplatelet therapies (with new participants being treated based on those recent guidelines), in the work reported in the present paper, we aimed to systematically re-assess the important issue of whether PCI should be recommended over CABG or vice versa using data from the most recent cohort of T2DM patients (2015–2017).

Methods

Data Sources

Only an electronic search was carried out (no manual search). The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (including PubMed); Cochrane Database; EMBASE database; Google Scholar; official websites of several common cardiology journals.

Search Terms

The main search terms were ‘diabetes mellitus,’ ‘coronary artery bypass surgery,’ and ‘percutaneous coronary intervention.’ Other terms searched for included ‘coronary angioplasty,’ ‘cardiac surgery,’ ‘type 2 diabetes mellitus,’ and abbreviations such as CABG and PCI.

Outcomes

The following outcomes (Table 1) were compared: mortality; myocardial infarction (MI); repeat revascularization (RR); stroke; major adverse events (MAEs), which refers to major adverse cardiac events and cerebrovascular events (including death, MI, RR, and/or stroke).
Table 1

Outcomes, diseases of the participants, and follow-up periods for each of the studies considered in this work

Study

Outcomes

Diseases of the participants

Follow-up period (years)

Barber et al. [8]

MAEs, mortality, MI, stroke, RR

T2DM and MVD

3.8

Bangalore et al. [9]

MI, RR, mortality

T2DM and MVD

4

Ben-Gal et al. [10]

MAEs, mortality, cardiac death, MI, RR, stroke

T2DM and MVD with NSTEMI

1

Li et al. [11]

Mortality, MI, RR, stroke, MAEs

Diabetic nephropathy and LMCAD

4.3

Marui et al. [12]

Mortality, cardiac death, MI, stroke, MI, RR

T2DM and CAD

5

Naito et al. [13]

Mortality, cardiac death

T2DM and MVD

3.7

Li et al. [14]

Mortality, MI, RR, stroke, MAEs

T2DM and CAD

5

Ramanathan et al. [15]

Mortality, MI, RR, stroke, MAEs

T2DM and ACS

5

MAEs major adverse events, MI myocardial infarction, RR repeat revascularization, T2DM type 2 diabetes mellitus, CAD coronary artery disease, NSTEMI non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, MVD multi-vessel coronary disease, LMCAD left main coronary artery disease, ACS acute coronary syndrome

Follow-up Periods

The follow-up period varied from 1 to 5 years. However, most of the studies had a follow-up period of more than 3 years, as shown in Table 1.

Data Extraction and Review

The reviewers who were involved in the data extraction process were Xia Dai, Zu-chun Luo, Lu Zhai, Wen-piao Zhao, and Feng Huang. Data extracted included: type of study; total number of patients treated with CABG; total number of patients treated with PCI; year of publication (2015–2017); diseases of the participants; baseline features; outcomes and corresponding numbers of events; follow-up periods. Any disagreement was resolved by consensus.

The trials were assessed for risk of bias with reference to the Cochrane Collaboration [6]. Approximate grades of between A and E were allotted to the trials depending on their risk of bias; A corresponded to a low risk of bias, whereas E indicated a high risk.

Statistical Analysis

The software used for statistical analysis was RevMan version 5.3. The analytical parameters of most interest were the odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using two tests [6]:
  1. (a)

    Q statistic test: P < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant result

     
  2. (b)

    I2 statistic test: the higher the percentage value of I2, the greater the heterogeneity

     

In terms of the statistical model applied, a fixed effects model was used if I2 was < 50%, and a random effects model was used if I2 was > 50%. Sensitivity analysis was carried out using an exclusion method whereby multiple analyses were performed, with a different trial/observational study excluded in each analysis. Publication bias was assessed by observing the shape of the funnel plot.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This meta-analysis is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Results

Search Results and General and Baseline Features

Figure 1 presents the study selection procedure for this analysis (the PRISMA guideline was followed [7]). Eight studies were ultimately included in the analysis [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].
Fig. 1

Flow diagram showing the study selection process

A total of 13,114 patients with T2DM were included in this meta-analysis (5502 patients were treated with CABG and 7612 patients were treated with PCI), as shown in Table 2.
Table 2

General features of the studies included in the analysis

Study

Type of study

Year of publication

No. of patients treated with CABG (n)

No. of patients treated with PCI (n)

Barber et al. [8]

RCT

2016

894

949

Bangalore et al. [9]

OS

2015

773

773

Ben-Gal et al. [10]

RCT

2015

423

1349

Li et al. [11]

OS

2017

53

46

Marui et al. [12]

OS

2015

861

1123

Naito et al. [13]

OS

2016

227

256

Li et al. [14]

OS

2017

406

406

Ramanathan et al. [15]

OS

2017

1865

2710

Total no. of patients (n)

  

5502

7612

RCT randomized controlled trial, OS observational study, CABG coronary artery bypass surgery, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention

The baseline characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 3.
Table 3

Baseline characteristics of the participants

Studies

Age (years)

Males (%)

HTN (%)

Ds (%)

Cs (%)

Type of DES

C/P

C/P

C/P

C/P

C/P

Barber et al. [8]

64.1/64.8

67.9/69.7

87.7/87.9

84.1/84.2

14.6/13.6

DES

Bangalore et al. [9]

64.7/64.9

68.0/68.0

EES

Ben-Gal et al. [10]

65.0/65.0

73.0/66.3

79.4/85.9

61.8/72.7

24.0/21.0

DES

Li et al. [11]

71.5/72.9

73.6/89.1

88.7/91.3

50.0/54.0

67.9/41.3

DES*

Marui et al. [12]

67.8/68.7

73.0/68.0

84.0/88.0

25.0/25.0

DES

Naito et al. [13]

72.7/72.7

68.3/78.1

74.0/77.0

68.7/76.6

62.6/58.6

DES

Li et al. [14]

42.1/41.4

89.2/94.3

65.8/57.2

62.1/72.8

DES

Ramanathan et al. [15]

65.2/67.3

73.2/72.0

91.8/88.1

79.5/77.5

DES

C coronary artery bypass surgery, P percutaneous coronary intervention, HTN hypertension, Ds dyslipidemia, Cs current smokers, EES everolimus-eluting stents, DES drug-eluting stents, DES* drug-eluting stents with the inclusion of a small percentage of bare metal stents

Main Results of this Analysis

This analysis—which only included trials and observational studies published after the year 2014—showed that during follow-up periods ranging from 1 to 5 years, mortality in T2DM patients treated with CABG was not significantly different from that in T2DM patients treated with PCI (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61–1.31; P = 0.57, as shown in Fig. 2). Stroke rates were also similar in the two groups (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.78–1.99; P = 0.36). However, the rate of MAEs was significantly higher in the PCI group (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48–0.82; P = 0.0006, as shown in Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Comparison of adverse outcomes in CABG versus PCI patients with T2DM (part I)

The rates of cardiac death in the two groups were not significantly different (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78–1.30; P = 0.98). However, the rates of repeat revascularization and MI were significantly more favorable with CABG than with PCI (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.24–0.30; P = 0.00001 and OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35–0.47; P = 0.00001, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Comparison of adverse outcomes in CABG versus PCI patients with T2DM (part II)

When a sensitivity analysis was carried out, the results showed that the findings of this analysis were not excessively influenced by any of the studies. There was also little evidence of publication bias.

Discussion

Recently, several issues have been raised as a result of comparisons of the adverse outcomes of CABG with those of PCI in patients with T2DM [1]. Mortality was reported to be similar in PCI and CABG patients with T2DM, which was seen as a problematic conclusion. Therefore, in the present analysis, we recompared the outcomes of PCI and CABG using data from recently published studies of T2DM patients in order to check this conclusion.

The results of the present analysis show that during follow-up periods ranging from 1 to 5 years, all-cause mortality and the rate of cardiac death in T2DM patients treated with CABG were not significantly different from those in T2DM patients treated with PCI. However, the rate of MAEs (including MI and RR) was significantly higher with PCI. The difference in stroke rate between the groups was not statistically significant.

Patients with T2DM are more at risk of in-stent restenosis following PCI, even during a medium-term rather than long-term follow-up period, which contributes to the significantly higher MAE rate compared to T2DM patients treated with CABG. The incidence of both occlusive and nonocclusive re-stenosis has been shown to be higher in uncontrolled DM patients. Even if diabetes mellitus is independently associated with adverse outcomes following PCI, insulin treatment and the severity of this chronic disease may be other causes of adverse outcomes.

This analysis of newly published data supports the results obtained by Bangalore et al. [1], suggesting that their conclusion is not “problematic.” Even though they carried out a network meta-analysis, which performed indirect comparisons, the results of the present analysis—which involved direct comparisons—did not show any significant difference from their results.

A recent publication in Scientific Reports [16] also presented similar results to the current analysis, even though it did not specifically include patients with T2DM. No difference in mortality between patients treated with an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and those treated with CABG was observed, whereas EES was associated with a significantly higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events than CABG. In addition, in a study focusing on patients with multi-vessel coronary disease and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, long-term mortality in the PCI and CABG groups was comparable, whereas the PCI group was associated with significantly higher rates of MI and repeat revascularization [17].

Results of other studies in which a significantly higher mortality was associated with PCI in T2DM patients than with CABG in T2DM patients could be due to the use of insulin treatment, as previously stated [18].

Nevertheless, the selection of patients for CABG or PCI should be partly based on their SYNTAX scores, especially for patients with T2DM, since they may have other comorbidities. Even though CABG should be considered the optimal revascularization strategy, PCI could be more applicable to a few patients according to their SYNTAX scores. The application of the SYNTAX score in interventional cardiology should be encouraged [19].

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations. First, the total number of patients was not high enough to reach a definitive conclusion. Second, patient data from randomized trials and observational studies were combined and analyzed. Third, the follow-up periods varied between studies. Fourth, the diseases (e.g., left main coronary artery disease, multi-vessel disease, diabetic nephropathy) suffered by the participants varied. Finally, the data were adjusted to represent less heterogeneity.

Conclusions

During follow-up periods of 1–5 years, mortality in T2DM patients treated with CABG did not differ significantly from mortality in T2DM patients treated with PCI. However, the rate of other major adverse events was significantly higher in the CABG group compared to the PCI group.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 81560046, 81760057) and the Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (no. 2016GXNSFAA380002). No funding was received for the publication of this article. The article processing charges were funded by the authors.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Authorship Contributions

Xia Dai, Zu-chun Luo, Lu Zhai, Wen-piao Zhao, and Feng Huang were responsible for the conception and design of the study, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation, the drafting the initial manuscript, and for revising it critically for important intellectual content. XD wrote and approved the final manuscript.

Disclosures

Xia Dai, Zu-chun Luo, Lu Zhai, Wen-piao Zhao, and Feng Huang have nothing to disclose.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This meta-analysis is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

  1. 1.
    Bangalore S, Toklu B, Feit F. Outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with diabetes mellitus: can newer generation drug-eluting stents bridge the gap? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(4):518–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Toeg HD, Farkouh ME, Ruel M. Letter by Toeg et al regarding article “Outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with diabetes mellitus: can newer generation drug-eluting stents bridge the gap?”. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(5):728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bangalore S, Toklu B, Feit F. Response to letter regarding article, “Outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with diabetes mellitus: can newer generation drug-eluting stents bridge the gap?”. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(5):729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lim JY, Deo SV, Kim WS, Altarabsheh SE, Erwin PJ, Park SJ. Drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients with multi-vessel disease: a meta-analysis. Heart Lung Circ. 2014;23(8):717–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nicolini F, Agostinelli A, Vezzani A, Benassi F, Gherli T. CABG versus PCI in the treatment of diabetic patients affected by coronary artery disease. Int Heart J. 2014;55(6):469–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baber U, Farkouh ME, Arbel Y, Muntner P, Dangas G, Mack MJ, Hamza TH, Mehran R, Fuster V. Comparative efficacy of coronary artery bypass surgery vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease with or without chronic kidney disease. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(46):3440–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bangalore S, Guo Y, Samadashvili Z, Blecker S, Xu J, Hannan EL. Everolimus eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(7):e002626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ben-Gal Y, Mohr R, Feit F, Ohman EM, Kirtane A, Xu K, Mehran R, Stone GW. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li HR, Hsu CP, Sung SH, Shih CC, Lin SJ, Chan WL, Wu CH, Lu TM. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetic nephropathy and left main coronary artery disease. Acta Cardiol Sin. 2017;33(2):119–26.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marui A, Kimura T, Nishiwaki N, Mitsudo K, Komiya T, Hanyu M, Shiomi H, Tanaka S, Sakata R. Five-year outcomes of percutaneous versus surgical coronary revascularization in patients with diabetes mellitus (from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2). Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(8):1063–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naito R, Miyauchi K, Konishi H, Tsuboi S, Ogita M, Dohi T, Kajimoto K, Kasai T, Tamura H, Okazaki S, Isoda K, Yamamoto T, Amano A, Daida H. Comparing mortality between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in elderly with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease. Heart Vessels. 2016;31(9):1424–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li Y, Dong R, Hua K, Liu TS, Zhou SY, Zhou N, Zhang HJ. Outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients aged 18–45 years with diabetes mellitus. Chin Med J (Engl). 2017;130(24):2906–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramanathan K, Abel JG, Park JE, Fung A, Mathew V, Taylor CM, Mancini GBJ, Gao M, Ding L, Verma S, Humphries KH, Farkouh ME. Surgical versus percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with diabetes and acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(24):2995–3006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bundhun PK, Pursun M, Teeluck AR, Bhurtu A, Soogund MZ, Huang WQ. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus eluting stents: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:35869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bangalore S, Guo Y, Samadashvili Z, Blecker S, Hannan EL. Revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction: everolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation. 2016;133(22):2132–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bundhun PK, Wu ZJ, Chen MH. 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. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2016;15:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bundhun PK, Sookharee Y, Bholee A, Huang F. Application of the SYNTAX score in interventional cardiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(28):e7410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EndocrinologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityGuangxiChina
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine EducationThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityGuangxiChina
  3. 3.Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Guangxi Key Laboratory Base of Precision Medicine in Cardio-cerebrovascular Disease Control and Prevention and Guangxi Clinical Research Center for Cardio-cerebrovascular DiseasesThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityGuangxiChina

Personalised recommendations