Search

Background: Some reports have indicated that in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel disease, coronary artery bypass surgery is preferred over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We retrospectively compared outcome PCI in diabetic and nondiabetic patients., Methods: Ninety-seven diabetics and 971 nondiabetics were included and randomised before PCI to aspirin alone or aspirin plus coumadin. Fifty diabetics and 481 nondiabetics underwent follow-up angiography. The primary endpoint comprised all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or targetvessel revascularisation., Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups except for significantly more males and smokers among the nondiabetics. The diabetics had significantly more previous strokes, more left anterior descending coronary artery disease as well as more restenotic lesions and multivessel disease. At 30 days, the primary endpoint had occurred in five diabetics (5.2%) and 47 nondiabetics (4.9%), (p=0.8) and at one year in 17 (17.5%) and in 165 (17.1%), respectively (p=0.9). Event-free survival remained comparable during long-term follow-up (four years). Multivariate analysis showed no differences for the occurrence of any event (p=0.9, 95% CI 0.6-1.7). At six months, the minimal luminal diameter was significantly smaller in the diabetics (1.55±0.76 mm vs. 1.78±0.66 mm, p=0.01). Diabetics also had more restenosis (41% vs. 23%, p=0.003)., Conclusion: Despite angiographical differences at six months between the diabetics and nondiabetics, both short-term and long-term clinical follow-up appeared to be similar.

Background: Coronary angioplasty should be based on documented ischemia. However, in daily clinical practice the indication for angioplasty is often based on eyeball assessment of the severity of the stenosis. This study was performed to assess the accuracy of eyeball estimation of coronary stenosis when taking functional flow reserve (FFR) as gold standard., Methods: Study lesions were where no mutual agreement on the severity of the stenosis was obtained. The procedure consisted of a repeat control angiogram, FFR measurement and in case of FFR<75% percutaneous coronary intervention. The eyeball assessment of the stenosis was written down before further execution of the procedure. FFR was measured with a pressure monitoring guide. Maximal myocardial hyperemia was induced by intravenous adenosine infusion., Results: Fifty-two patients were studied. Agreement between eyeball assessment and FFR existed in a total of 36 cases (69.2%). Over estimation of hemodynamic severity occurred in six cases (11.5%) and under estimation in 10 cases (19.2%). Consequently, the positive predictive value of eyeball assessment for pressure-derived FFR was 63% and the negative predictive value 76%., Conclusion: The assessment of the hemodynamic severity of intermediate coronary stenosis should not be based on eyeball assessment even by experienced interventional cardiologists.