Mancini, G.B. John

Introduction: The benefits of optimal medical therapy (OMT) with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery have been evaluated in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) but analyses have not been stratified by detailed angiographic CAD burden or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods: A patient-level meta-analysis was undertaken among T2DM patients enrolled in COURAGE, BARI 2D and FREEDOM to assess the impact of randomization to OMT, PCI + OMT, or CABG + OMT on a composite end-point of Death/MI/Stroke and stratified by LVEF (≥ 50%, < 50%), 1, 2 or 3 vessel disease (VD) (% diameter stenosis ≥ 50%) and presence or absence of proximal left anterior descending (pLAD) disease. Hazard ratios (HR) for treatment groups were calculated from Cox regression models including all patients adjusting for trial and revascularization stratum in BARI 2D. Multivariable adjustment for risk factors was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Results: There were 5,034 patients included in the analysis (BARI 2D: n=2,368, COURAGE: n=766, FREEDOM: n=1,900) of whom 17% had LVEF < 50%, 29% had pLAD, and 77% had 2 or 3 VD. A total of 1,591 patients were randomized to OMT alone, 2,118 to PCI + OMT, and 1,325 to CABG + OMT. There were 1,116 events during a median 4.5 year follow-up. There was no significant effect on outcomes with OMT vs PCI + OMT irrespective of LVEF, presence/absence of pLAD and number of VD. By contrast, CABG + OMT significantly reduced the risk of Death/MI/Stroke in patients with 2 or 3 VD, irrespective of LVEF and presence/absence of pLAD (see Table). Results were similar with multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: In patients with T2DM and stable CAD, OMT alone appears to be as effective as PCI + OMT while CABG + OMT significantly reduces cardiovascular events in those with multivessel CAD, irrespective of LVEF or presence of pLAD.

Background— Restenosis after implantation of coronary artery stents remains a significant clinical problem. We undertook a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether cilostazol, a drug that suppresses intimal proliferation, would reduce renarrowing in patients after stent implantation in native coronary arteries. Methods and Results— We assigned 705 patients who had successful coronary stent implantation to receive, in addition to aspirin, cilostazol 100 mg BID or placebo for 6 months; clopidogrel 75 mg daily was administered to all patients for 30 days. Restenosis was determined by quantitative coronary angiography at 6 months. The minimal luminal diameter at 6 months for cilostazol-treated patients was 1.77 mm for the analysis segment (stent plus 5-mm borders) compared with 1.62 mm in the placebo group ( P =0.01). Restenosis, defined as ≥50% narrowing, occurred in 22.0% of patients in the cilostazol group and in 34.5% of the placebo group ( P =0.002), a 36% relative risk reduction. Restenosis was significantly lower in cilostazol-treated diabetics (17.7% versus 37.7%, P =0.01) and in those with small vessels (23.6% versus 35.2%, P =0.02), long lesions (29.9% versus 46.6%, P =0.04), and left anterior descending coronary artery site (19.3% versus 39.8%, P =0.001). There was no difference in bleeding, rehospitalization, target-vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, or death. Conclusions— Treatment with the drug cilostazol resulted in a significantly larger minimal luminal diameter and a significantly lower binary restenosis rate compared with placebo-treated patients. These favorable effects were apparent in patients at high risk for restenosis.