Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Cardiovascular Diabetology 1/2019

Open Access 01.12.2019 | Original investigation

Staged complete revascularization or culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel coronary artery disease in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and diabetes

verfasst von: Kongyong Cui, Shuzheng Lyu, Hong Liu, Xiantao Song, Fei Yuan, Feng Xu, Min Zhang, Wei Wang, Mingduo Zhang, Dongfeng Zhang, Jinfan Tian

Erschienen in: Cardiovascular Diabetology | Ausgabe 1/2019

Abstract

Background

Recently, several randomized trials have noted improved outcomes with staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit vessels in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. However, it remains unclear whether diabetes status affects the outcomes after different revascularization strategies. This study thus compared the impact of diabetes status on long-term outcomes after staged complete revascularization with that after culprit-only PCI.

Methods

From January 2006 to December 2015, 371 diabetic patients (staged PCI: 164, culprit-only PCI: 207) and 834 nondiabetic patients (staged PCI: 412, culprit-only PCI: 422) with STEMI and multivessel disease were enrolled. The primary endpoint was 5-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or unplanned revascularization.

Results

The rate of the 5-year composite primary endpoint for diabetic patients was close to that for nondiabetic patients (34.5% vs. 33.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.012, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.815–1.255). In nondiabetic patients, the 5-year risks of MACCE (31.8% vs. 35.5%; adjusted HR 0.638, 95% CI 0.500–0.816), MI (4.6% vs. 9.2%; adjusted HR 0.358, 95% CI 0.200–0.641), unplanned revascularization (19.9% vs. 24.9%; adjusted HR 0.532, 95% CI 0.393–0.720), and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (11.4% vs. 15.2%; adjusted HR 0.621, 95% CI 0.419–0.921) were significantly lower after staged PCI than after culprit-only PCI. In contrast, no significant difference was found between the two groups with respect to MACCE, MI, unplanned revascularization, and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke in diabetic patients. Significant interactions were found between diabetes status and revascularization assignment for the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (Pinteraction = 0.013), MI (Pinteraction = 0.005), and unplanned revascularization (Pinteraction = 0.013) at 5 years. In addition, the interaction tended to be significant for the primary endpoint of MACCE (Pinteraction = 0.053). Moreover, the results of propensity score-matching analysis were concordant with the overall analysis in both diabetic and nondiabetic population.

Conclusions

In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, diabetes is not an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular events at 5 years. In nondiabetic patients, an approach of staged complete revascularization is superior to culprit-only PCI, whereas the advantage of staged PCI is attenuated in diabetic patients.
Trial registration This study was not registered in an open access database
Hinweise

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12933-019-0923-0.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
PCI
percutaneous coronary intervention
STEMI
ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
RCT
randomized controlled trial
CAD
coronary artery disease
MACCE
major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event
MI
myocardial infarction
HR
hazard ratio
CI
confidence interval

Background

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is currently the standard care for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Approximately 50% of these patients have multivessel disease and present worse clinical outcomes compared with those having single-vessel disease [1, 2]. Although several previous small-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registries [38] supported a conservative approach for nonculprit diseases, recent landmark RCTs have improved outcomes with immediate or staged complete revascularization [912]. Accordingly, the latest European Society of Cardiology guideline upgraded the recommendation for nonculprit lesions revascularization during primary PCI or as a staged procedure over culprit-only PCI [13].
Diabetes is a strong independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) [1418]. Over recent decades, the prevalence of diabetes mellitus is dramatically increased from 108 million in 1980 to 451 million in 2017 [19, 20]. Generally, diabetic patients are prone to a diffuse and rapidly progressive form of atherosclerosis. This increases the risk of unfavorable clinical outcomes after revascularization [21, 22]. In this setting, diabetes might be an important consideration when choosing a revascularization strategy, i.e., staged complete revascularization or culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.
Nevertheless, the relation between the effect of diabetes and different strategies remains underdetermined. These high-risk patients are generally underrepresented by RCTs, with a small proportion of diabetic patients enrolled [912]. In a study conducted by Hamza et al. [23], diabetic patients underwent complete revascularization with STEMI and multivessel disease were significantly associated with lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events than that in culprit-only PCI group. However, the limitations of their study were the small sample size and a short follow-up period of only 6 months. We therefore performed this study to compare the impact of diabetes status on long-term outcomes of patients with STEMI and multivessel disease after staged complete revascularization with that after culprit-only PCI.

Methods

Study design and population

The present report is a single-center, retrospective, observational study. The study design has been previously described [24]. Briefly, a total of 1205 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who underwent primary PCI within 12 h from symptom onset underwent staged complete revascularization or culprit-only PCI between January 2006 and December 2015 in our center. The local ethical committee approved the study, and the written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective enrollment. In addition, patient records were anonymized and deidentified before database merging and analysis.
Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed based on previous medical records as well as therapeutic status of glucose-lowering therapy, i.e., insulin, oral hypoglycemic agents, diet and exercise. Multivessel disease was defined as the presence of ≥ 70% angiographic stenosis in ≥ 1 nonculprit major coronary arteries (with diameter ≥ 2.5 mm). Exclusion criteria were single-vessel disease (n = 1390), left main disease (n = 40), concomitant chronic total occlusion (n = 307), rescue PCI (n = 116), immediate complete revascularization (n = 81), undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (n = 97), receiving medical therapy only (n = 34), or being dead during hospitalization (n = 16).

Study procedures

All patients received loading doses of aspirin (300 mg), clopidogrel (600 mg) or ticagrelor (180 mg) before primary PCI. The culprit vessel was ascertained by evaluation of electrocardiographic changes, echocardiographic and angiographic findings. Primary PCI as well as the use of heparin, thrombus aspiration, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor were in compliance with the current guidelines and the operators’ routine practice [13, 25]. After the procedure, aspirin (100 mg/day) and clopidogrel (75 mg/day) or ticagrelor (180 mg/day) were prescribed at the same time every day. Culprit-only PCI was defined as the treatment of the culprit vessel only at the time of primary PCI without revascularization of nonculprit vessels during the following 30 days after primary PCI. In the staged PCI group, revascularization of significant nonculprit lesions was performed within 30 days after the procedure, which was determined by the physicians and/or patients. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury was defined as an increase in serum creatinine of ≥ 25% compared with baseline values or as an absolute increase in serum creatinine of ≥ 0.5 mg/dL (44.2 mmol/L) within 72 h after PCI [26, 27].

Follow-up and endpoints

Demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, clinical characteristics, laboratory data, angiographic and procedural details were collected from hospital databases and recorded in a computerized database. Follow-up information was obtained from the review of hospital charts, clinical visits or telephone interviews, which were conducted by trained reviewers. In order to record at least 2-year follow-up information about all patients, we extended the follow-up period to May 31, 2018.
The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary endpoint as well as cardiac death, and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke. All deaths were considered to be cardiac-related unless a non-cardiac origin was documented. Diagnosis of MI was made according to fourth universal definition of MI [28]. Stroke was defined as a new focal neurological deficit lasting > 24 h, which was confirmed by neurologists based on both clinical and radiographic criteria [29]. Unplanned revascularization was repeat PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting of any vessels excluding staged PCI. In addition, all the endpoints were verified and adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee (XTS, HL and SZL).

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range), and were compared using the Student’s t test and Mann–Whitney U test according to different distributions. Categorical variables were expressed as number (percentage), and were compared using the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to plot time-to-event curves, and differences were assessed using log-rank test. To find predictors of clinical events, Cox proportional hazard model analysis was conducted to provide adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Variables in Table 1 (without laboratory data) with P ≤ 0.1 at the univariate analysis were entered into multivariate Cox regression analysis. In particular, formal interaction testing was performed between diabetes status and revascularization treatment on all clinical outcomes.
Table 1
Baseline patient, angiographic and procedural characteristics according to diabetes status
Variable
No diabetes (n = 834)
Diabetes (n = 371)
P value
Age (years)
60 (51–68)
60 (53–68)
0.811
Male
675 (80.9)
280 (75.5)
0.031
Current smoker
467 (56.0)
183 (49.3)
0.032
Hypertension
495 (59.4)
242 (65.2)
0.053
Dyslipidemia
480 (57.6)
230 (62.0)
0.148
Previous myocardial infarction
39 (4.7)
26 (7.0)
0.098
Previous PCI
42 (5.0)
28 (7.5)
0.085
Previous stroke
74 (8.9)
44 (11.9)
0.107
Peripheral vascular disease
20 (2.4)
16 (4.3)
0.072
CKD in treatment
16 (1.9)
10 (2.7)
0.392
OSAHS
14 (1.7)
2 (0.5)
0.171
Heart rate (beats/min)
76 (68–85)
78 (70–85)
0.101
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)
120 (108–130)
120 (110–130)
0.236
Laboratory data
 Peak troponin (μg/L)
68 (28–102)
73 (28–102)
0.808
 Peak CK (U/L)
2101 (1124–3404)
1977 (987–3347)
0.204
 Peak CK-MB (U/L)
227 (120–305)
173 (85–299)
< 0.001
Time from symptom onset to PCI (h)
5.0 (3.0–7.0)
5.0 (3.5–8.0)
0.009
Killip class III/IV
74 (8.9)
46 (12.4)
0.059
Radial artery access
295 (35.4)
151 (40.7)
0.077
No. narrowed coronary arteries
0.778
 Two
580 (69.5)
255 (68.7)
 
 Three
254 (30.5)
116 (31.3)
 
Culprit vessel
0.832
 Left anterior descending
325 (39.0)
138 (37.2)
 
 Left circumflex
112 (13.4)
50 (13.5)
 
 Right
397 (47.6)
183 (49.3)
 
Non-culprit artery
 Left anterior descending
370 (44.4)
178 (48.0)
0.245
 Left circumflex
453 (54.3)
197 (53.1)
0.696
 Right
266 (31.9)
111 (29.9)
0.495
Thrombus aspiration
582 (69.8)
234 (63.1)
0.021
No-reflow phenomenon
80 (9.6)
37 (10.0)
0.837
Intra-aortic balloon pump use
83 (10.0)
36 (9.7)
0.894
Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use
224 (26.9)
91 (24.5)
0.395
Temporary pacemaker
20 (2.4)
15 (4.0)
0.116
Defibrillator
43 (5.2)
18 (4.9)
0.824
Drug-eluting stent use
809 (97.0)
360 (97.0)
0.975
Type of stent
0.276
 1st drug-eluting stent
634 (76.0)
265 (71.4)
 
 2nd drug-eluting stent
175 (21.0)
95 (25.6)
 
 Bare-mental stent
2 (0.2)
2 (0.5)
 
 PTCA
23 (2.8)
9 (2.4)
 
Stent number
1 (1–2)
1 (1–2)
0.137
Total stent length (mm)
33 (24–48)
30 (24–42)
0.080
Minimum stent diameter (mm)
3.00 (2.50–3.50)
3.00 (2.50–3.50)
0.338
Medications at discharge
 Aspirin
833 (99.9)
371 (100.0)
1.000
 P2Y12 receptor inhibitor
834 (100.0)
371 (100.0)
1.000
 ACEI/ARB
617 (74.0)
269 (72.5)
0.592
 β-blockers
693 (83.1)
331 (89.2)
0.006
 Statins
826 (99.0)
370 (99.7)
0.289
Acute kidney injurya
177 (21.3)
74 (21.0)
0.602
ACEI angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB angiotensin receptor blocker, CKD chronic kidney disease, CK-MB creatine kinase myocardial band, OSAHS obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, PTCA percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
aData of acute kidney injury was obtained from 1200 (99.6%) patients
To adjust for potential confounders from the real world, a double 1:1 propensity score-matching analysis (staged PCI vs. culprit-only PCI groups) without replacement, on the basis of the nearest neighbor in terms of Mahalanobis distance with a caliper of 0.02, was performed in each subgroup of patients, i.e., nondiabetic and diabetic patients. To estimate the propensity score, a logistic regression model was used including variables of age, gender, current smoking, hypertension, previous MI, previous PCI, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, time from symptom onset to PCI, heart rate, access site of PCI, Killip class III/IV, number of diseased vessels, culprit vessel of left anterior descending coronary artery, nonculprit vessel of left anterior descending coronary artery, thrombus aspiration, intra-aortic balloon pump, stent length, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and use of β-blockers. In addition, to assess the robustness of the results, long-term outcomes of patients undergoing staged PCI within 10 days were compared with those in culprit-only PCI group not undergoing revascularization of nonculprit vessels during the following 10 days after primary PCI in both nondiabetic and diabetic population.
Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) and STATA 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA). A two-sided P value of < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Baseline patient, angiographic and procedural characteristics

Among the 1205 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who received staged complete revascularization (n = 576) or culprit-only PCI (n = 629), 371 (30.8%) had diabetes mellitus, of which 164 (44.2%) received staged PCI and 207 (55.8%) underwent culprit-only PCI. Among the remaining 834 nondiabetic patients, 412 (49.4%) received staged PCI and 422 (50.6%) underwent culprit-only PCI. Staged PCI was performed after a median time of 6 days in both nondiabetic and diabetic cohorts. The staged procedures were performed within 10 days after primary PCI in 89.0% (n = 146) of the diabetic patients and 90.3% (n = 372) of the nondiabetic patients. The mean follow-up period was 5.01 years.
Compared with nondiabetic patients, diabetic patients were less likely to be male (P = 0.031) and current smokers (P = 0.032) and to receive thrombus aspiration (P = 0.021), but were more likely to receive β-blockers (P = 0.006) with longer time from symptom to intervention (P = 0.009) (Table 1). In diabetic patients, those who underwent staged PCI were more likely to be male (P = 0.006), had less culprit vessels of left anterior descending coronary artery (P = 0.003), and were less frequently to receive transradial PCI (P < 0.001) and defibrillator (P = 0.016) than those who received culprit-only PCI. In nondiabetic patients, those who underwent staged PCI were younger (P = 0.001), had lower prevalence rates of chronic kidney disease (P = 0.013) and Killip class III/IV (P = 0.010), had more three-vessel disease (P < 0.001), nonculprit vessels of left anterior descending coronary artery (P = 0.003), were more frequently to use intra-aortic balloon pump (P = 0.006), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (P < 0.001) during hospitalization, and less likely to receive transradial PCI (P < 0.001) and temporary pacemaker (P = 0.027). Besides, patients who underwent staged PCI had lower heart rates (P = 0.010), shorter time from symptom to intervention (P = 0.004), and shorter total stent length (P = 0.010) than those who underwent culprit-only PCI (Table 2).
Table 2
Baseline patient, angiographic and procedural characteristics according to diabetes status and revascularization assignment
Variable
No diabetes (n = 834)
Diabetes (n = 371)
Culprit-only PCI (n = 422)
Staged PCI (n = 412)
P value
Culprit-only PCI (n = 207)
Staged PCI (n = 164)
P value
Age (years)
61 (52–70)
58 (50–66)
0.001
61 (53–69)
59 (51–66)
0.055
Male
334 (79.1)
341 (82.8)
0.183
145 (70.0)
135 (82.3)
0.006
Current smoker
225 (53.3)
242 (58.7)
0.115
98 (47.3)
85 (51.8)
0.391
Hypertension
262 (62.1)
233 (56.6)
0.104
140 (67.6)
102 (62.2)
0.275
Dyslipidemia
241 (57.1)
239 (58.0)
0.792
123 (59.4)
107 (65.2)
0.251
Previous myocardial infarction
23 (5.5)
16 (3.9)
0.284
16 (7.7)
10 (6.1)
0.541
Previous PCI
22 (5.2)
20 (4.9)
0.813
16 (7.7)
12 (7.3)
0.881
Previous stroke
43 (10.2)
31 (7.5)
0.176
28 (13.5)
16 (9.8)
0.265
Peripheral vascular disease
8 (1.9)
12 (2.9)
0.337
9 (4.3)
7 (4.3)
0.970
CKD in treatment
13 (3.1)
3 (0.7)
0.013
6 (2.9)
4 (2.4)
1.000
OSAHS
9 (2.1)
5 (1.2)
0.302
2 (1.0)
0 (0)
0.505
Heart rate (beats/min)
76 (69–86)
75 (67–84)
0.010
78 (70–86)
78 (70–85)
0.884
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)
120 (107–130)
120 (109–130)
0.151
120 (108–130)
120 (110–132)
0.619
Laboratory data
 Peak troponin (μg/L)
68 (25–101)
68 (30–114)
0.076
76 (27–102)
69 (28–108)
0.735
 Peak CK (U/L)
2110 (1088–3391)
2076 (1156–3474)
0.611
1974 (982–3360)
1986 (1012–3311)
0.918
 Peck CK-MB (U/L)
239 (111–304)
217 (128–307)
0.865
180 (89–293)
168 (68–300)
0.963
Time from symptom onset to PCI (h)
5.0 (3.0–8.0)
4.0 (3.0–7.0)
0.004
5.0 (3.0–8.0)
5.0 (3.5–8.0)
0.701
Killip class III/IV
48 (11.4)
26 (6.3)
0.010
31 (15.0)
15 (9.1)
0.091
Radial artery access
192 (45.5)
103 (25.0)
< 0.001
101 (48.8)
50 (30.5)
< 0.001
No. narrowed coronary arteries
  
< 0.001
  
0.082
 Two
317 (75.1)
263 (63.8)
 
150 (72.5)
105 (64.0)
 
 Three
105 (24.9)
149 (36.2)
 
57 (27.5)
59 (36.0)
 
Culprit vessel
  
0.094
  
0.003
 Left anterior descending
168 (39.8)
157 (38.1)
 
88 (42.5)
50 (30.5)
 
 Left circumflex
46 (10.9)
66 (16.0)
 
18 (8.7)
32 (19.5)
 
 Right
208 (49.3)
189 (45.9)
 
101 (48.8)
82 (50.0)
 
Non-culprit artery
 Left anterior descending
166 (39.3)
204 (49.5)
0.003
90 (43.5)
88 (53.7)
0.051
 Left circumflex
246 (58.3)
207 (50.2)
0.020
115 (55.6)
82 (50.0)
0.287
 Right
115 (27.3)
151 (36.7)
0.004
58 (28.0)
53 (32.3)
0.369
Thrombus aspiration
284 (67.3)
298 (72.3)
0.114
133 (64.3)
101 (61.6)
0.597
No-reflow phenomenon
46 (10.9)
34 (8.3)
0.194
23 (11.1)
14 (8.5)
0.411
Intra-aortic balloon pump use
30 (7.1)
53 (12.9)
0.006
21 (10.1)
15 (9.1)
0.747
Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use
103 (24.4)
121 (29.4)
0.106
55 (26.6)
36 (22.0)
0.304
Temporary pacemaker
15 (3.6)
5 (1.2)
0.027
12 (5.8)
3 (1.8)
0.054
Defibrillator
24 (5.7)
19 (4.6)
0.483
15 (7.2)
3 (1.8)
0.016
Drug-eluting stent use
405 (96.0)
404 (98.1)
0.077
199 (96.1)
161 (98.2)
0.359
Type of stent
  
0.280
  
0.153
 1st drug-eluting stent
314 (74.4)
320 (77.7)
 
140 (67.6)
125 (76.2)
 
 2nd drug-eluting stent
91 (21.6)
84 (20.4)
 
59 (28.5)
36 (22.0)
 
 Bare-mental stent
1 (0.2)
1 (0.2)
 
2 (1.0)
0 (0)
 
 PTCA
16 (3.8)
7 (1.7)
 
6 (2.9)
3 (1.8)
 
Stent number
1 (1–2)
1 (1–2)
0.213
1 (1–2)
1 (1–2)
0.269
Total stent length (mm)
33 (24–51)
31 (24–46)
0.010
33 (24–44)
29 (23–41)
0.141
Minimum stent diameter (mm)
3.0 (2.5–3.5)
3.0 (2.5–3.5)
0.672
3.0 (2.5–3.5)
3.0 (2.5–3.5)
0.561
Medications at discharge
 Aspirin
421 (99.8)
412 (100)
1.000
207 (100)
164 (100)
1.000
 P2Y12 receptor inhibitor
422 (100)
412 (100)
1.000
207 (100)
164 (100)
1.000
 ACEI/ARB
290 (68.7)
327 (79.4)
< 0.001
143 (69.1)
126 (76.8)
0.097
 β-blockers
359 (85.1)
334 (81.1)
0.123
185 (89.4)
146 (89.0)
0.915
 Statins
418 (99.1)
408 (99.0)
1.000
207 (100)
163 (99.4)
0.442
Acute kidney injurya
80 (19.1)
97 (23.6)
0.113
37 (18.0)
37 (22.6)
0.272
ACEI angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB angiotensin receptor blocker, CKD chronic kidney disease, CK-MB creatine kinase myocardial band, OSAHS obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, PTCA percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
aData of acute kidney injury was obtained from 1200 (99.6%) patients

Comparison of 5-year outcomes between diabetic and nondiabetic patients

Clinical outcomes according to diabetes status are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 1. The 5-year incidences of MACCE (34.5% vs. 33.7%; HR 1.075, 95% CI 0.872 to 1.325) and a composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (12.4% vs. 13.3%; HR 0.976, 95% CI 0.692 to 1.377) were similar in diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients. In addition, the risks of all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, stroke, and unplanned revascularization were not significantly different between those two groups.
Table 3
The comparison of 5-year outcomes between the diabetic group and nondiabetic group
Clinical endpoint
Overall (n = 1205)
Crude HR (95% CI)
Adjusted HR (95% CI)
No diabetes (n = 834)
Diabetes (n = 371)
MACCE
281 (33.7)
128 (34.5)
1.075 (0.872–1.325)
1.012 (0.815–1.255)
Cardiac death/MI/stroke
111 (13.3)
46 (12.4)
0.976 (0.692–1.377)
0.869 (0.608–1.242)
All-cause death
80 (9.6)
32 (8.6)
0.935 (0.620–1.409)
0.785 (0.512–1.203)
Cardiac death
37 (4.4)
19 (5.1)
1.210 (0.696–2.104)
0.982 (0.549–1.757)
MI
58 (7.0)
22 (5.9)
0.884 (0.541–1.444)
0.855 (0.515–1.419)
Stroke
20 (2.4)
11 (3.0)
1.280 (0.613–2.671)
1.148 (0.540–2.440)
Unplanned revascularization
187 (22.4)
88 (23.7)
1.084 (0.841–1.396)
1.065 (0.826–1.374)
CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, MACCE major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event, MI myocardial infarction
After adjusting potential confounders, diabetes was not independently associated with the primary endpoint of MACCE (Adjusted HR 1.012, 95% CI 0.815 to 1.255), and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (Adjusted HR 0.869, 95% CI 0.608 to 1.242) at 5 years. Notably, the strategy of culprit-only PCI (P = 0.010), previous stroke (P = 0.012), chronic kidney disease (P = 0.016), and high systolic blood pressure (P = 0.021) were independently associated with the higher incidence of MACCE at 5 years (Table 4).
Table 4
Cox proportional hazards analysis of predictors of the primary endpoint at 5 years
Variable
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
HR (95% CI)
P value
HR (95% CI)
P value
Diabetes (vs. no diabetes)
1.075 (0.872–1.325)
0.498
1.012 (0.815–1.255)
0.916
Staged PCI (vs. culprit-only PCI)
0.721 (0.593–0.878)
0.001
0.766 (0.626–0.937)
0.010
Male (vs. female)
0.791 (0.630–0.995)
0.045
0.892 (0.703–1.131)
0.346
Previous stroke
1.593 (1.191–2.131)
0.002
1.475 (1.088–2.000)
0.012
Peripheral vascular disease
1.584 (0.974–2.574)
0.064
1.563 (0.953–2.561)
0.077
Chronic kidney disease
2.379 (1.419–3.991)
0.001
1.922 (1.131–3.268)
0.016
Heart rate
1.007 (1.001–1.013)
0.028
1.005 (0.998–1.011)
0.140
Systolic blood pressure
1.005 (1.000–1.010)
0.040
1.006 (1.001–1.011)
0.021
Killip class III/IV
1.361 (1.010–1.834)
0.043
1.291 (0.934–1.785)
0.122
Stent number
1.150 (0.993–1.331)
0.062
1.081 (0.797–1.465)
0.618
Total stent length
1.007 (1.001–1.013)
0.022
1.004 (0.992–1.015)
0.509
No-reflow phenomenon
1.336 (0.991–1.801)
0.057
1.248 (0.917–1.701)
0.159
Use of aspirin
0.069 (0.010–0.498)
0.008
0.176 (0.023–1.349)
0.095
CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention

Comparison of 5-year outcomes between staged complete revascularization and culprit-only PCI

Among nondiabetic patients, patients who received staged PCI presented lower risks of MACCE (31.8% vs. 35.5%; HR 0.643, 95% CI 0.507 to 0.815), MI (4.6% vs. 9.2%; HR 0.346, 95% CI 0.199 to 0.601), unplanned revascularization (19.9% vs. 24.9%; HR 0.625, 95% CI 0.466 to 0.837), and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (11.4% vs. 15.2%; HR 0.529, 95% CI 0.362 to 0.774) than those who underwent culprit-only PCI (Table 5 and Fig. 2). No significant difference was found between the two revascularization strategies with respect to all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and stroke. After the potential confounders were adjusted, staged PCI was associated with a decrease in the risk of the primary endpoint of MACCE (Adjusted HR 0.638, 95% CI 0.500 to 0.816), MI (Adjusted HR 0.358, 95% CI 0.200 to 0.641), unplanned revascularization (Adjusted HR 0.532, 95% CI 0.393 to 0.720), and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (Adjusted HR 0.621, 95% CI 0.419 to 0.921) in nondiabetic patients.
Table 5
Five-year outcomes according to diabetes status and revascularization assignment
Clinical endpoint
No diabetes (n = 834)
Crude HR (95% CI)
Adjusted HR (95% CI)
Diabetes (n = 371)
Crude HR (95% CI)
Adjusted HR (95% CI)
P for interaction
Culprit-only PCI (n = 422)
Staged PCI (n = 412)
Culprit-only PCI (n = 207)
Staged PCI (n = 164)
MACCE
150 (35.5)
131 (31.8)
0.643(0.507–0.815)
0.638 (0.500–0.816)
66 (31.9)
62 (37.8)
0.939 (0.662–1.331)
0.986 (0.683–1.422)
0.053
Cardiac death/MI/stroke
64 (15.2)
47 (11.4)
0.529 (0.362–0.774)
0.621 (0.419–0.921)
23 (11.1)
23 (14.0)
1.042 (0.583–1.862)
1.593 (0.846–3.000)
0.013
All-cause death
39 (9.2)
41 (10.0)
0.808 (0.520–1.257)
1.281 (0.803–2.042)
18 (8.7)
14 (8.5)
0.709 (0.350–0.434)
0.876 (0.404–1.898)
0.410
Cardiac death
17 (4.0)
20 (4.9)
0.913 (0.476–1.753)
1.650 (0.817–3.335)
11 (5.3)
8 (4.9)
0.685 (0.274–1.717)
0.840 (0.304–2.316)
0.284
MI
39 (9.2)
19 (4.6)
0.346 (0.199–0.601)
0.358(0.200–0.641)
10 (4.8)
12 (7.3)
1.339 (0.578–3.103)
1.599 (0.663–3.858)
0.005
Stroke
12 (2.8)
8 (1.9)
0.517 (0.210–1.272)
0.574 (0.231–1.426)
6 (2.9)
5 (3.0)
0.878 (0.267–2.885)
0.857 (0.248–2.964)
0.610
Unplanned revascularization
105 (24.9)
82 (19.9)
0.625 (0.466–0.837)
0.532 (0.393–0.720)
45 (21.7)
43 (26.2)
1.045 (0.687–1.590)
1.038 (0.672–1.605)
0.013
CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, MACCE major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event, MI myocardial infarction, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention
In diabetic patients, the incidences of the primary endpoint of MACCE (37.8% vs. 31.9%; HR 0.939, 95% CI 0.662 to 1.331) and the secondary outcomes were comparable between the two revascularization therapies (Table 5 and Fig. 3). After the potential confounders were adjusted, staged PCI was not independently associated with MACCE (Adjusted HR 0.986, 95% CI 0.683 to 1.422) and the secondary endpoints of the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (Adjusted HR 1.593, 95% CI 0.846 to 3.000), all-cause death (Adjusted HR 0.876, 95% CI 0.404 to 1.898), cardiac death (Adjusted HR 0.840, 95% CI 0.304 to 2.316), MI (Adjusted HR 1.599, 95% CI 0.663 to 3.858), stroke (Adjusted HR 0.857, 95% CI 0.248 to 2.964) and unplanned revascularization (Adjusted HR 1.038, 95% CI 0.672 to 1.605) at 5 years.
By formal interaction testing, significant interactions were found between diabetes status and revascularization assignment for the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (Pinteraction = 0.013), MI (Pinteraction = 0.005), and unplanned revascularization (Pinteraction = 0.013) at 5 years. In addition, the interaction tended to be significant for the primary endpoint of MACCE (Pinteraction = 0.053). However, there were no significant interactions between diabetes status and treatment for all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality and stroke (Table 5).

Propensity score-matching analysis

After propensity score-matching, 127 matched pairs for diabetic patients with STEMI and multivessel disease and 280 matched pairs for nondiabetic patients with STEMI and multivessel disease were generated. All the matched variables were well balanced for both diabetic and nondiabetic cohorts, with postmatching absolute standardized differences < 10% (Additional file 1: Figure S1). No significant differences for main baseline patient, angiographic and procedural characteristics were present between the staged PCI and culprit-only PCI groups in both diabetic and nondiabetic cohorts (Additional file 1: Table S1). Diabetic patients undergoing staged PCI were less likely to receive defibrillator compared with those in culprit-only group (P = 0.010). In nondiabetic population, compared with those in culprit-only group, patients in the staged PCI group were less likely to receive temporary pacemaker (P = 0.020) and associated with higher risk of acute kidney injury after PCI (P = 0.049).
Among nondiabetic patients, patients undergoing staged PCI were associated with lower risks of MACCE (HR 0.583, 95% CI 0.432 to 0.787), MI (HR 0.275, 95% CI 0.134 to 0.563), unplanned revascularization (HR 0.546, 95% CI 0.380 to 0.783), and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (HR 0.498, 95% CI 0.311 to 0.798) compared with those undergoing culprit-only PCI (Additional file 1: Table S2 and Figure S2A). In diabetic patients, the risks of the primary endpoint of MACCE (HR 1.271, 95% CI 0.820 to 1.971) and all the secondary outcomes were comparable between the two strategies (Additional file 1: Table S2 and Figure S2B). Furthermore, there were significant interactions between diabetes status and revascularization assignment for MACCE (Pinteraction = 0.004), MI (Pinteraction = 0.004), unplanned revascularization (Pinteraction = 0.005), and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (Pinteraction = 0.007).

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis comparing patients undergoing staged complete revascularization within 10 days after primary PCI versus those undergoing culprit-only PCI was concordant with the overall analysis in both diabetic and nondiabetic population. However, diabetic patients undergoing staged PCI was associated with higher risk of MI than those undergoing culprit-only PCI (Adjusted HR 2.617, 95% CI 1.057 to 6.481) (Additional file 1: Tables S3, S4 and Figure S3).

Discussion

During the 10-year study, diabetes was present in 30.8% of the patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who underwent primary PCI in our center. Multivariate analysis showed that diabetes mellitus was not independently associated with the primary endpoint of MACCE or the secondary outcomes at 5 years. Compared with culprit-only PCI, staged complete revascularization was associated with lower risks of MACCE, MI, unplanned revascularization and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke in nondiabetic patients. However, no significant difference was found between the two revascularization strategies in terms of all the outcomes in diabetic patients. Besides, significant interactions between diabetes status and treatment for MI, unplanned revascularization and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke at 5 years were found. Furthermore, these findings were demonstrated by propensity score-matching analysis.
Patients with STEMI and multivessel disease were associated with worse outcomes than those with single-vessel disease [1, 2]. However, the management of nonculprit lesions has been fiercely debated for two decades until the recent publication of the landmark RCTs [912]. The Preventative Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction trial showed that preventive PCI of nonculprit lesions significantly reduced the risk of a composite endpoint of cardiac death, MI, and refractory angina at 23 months [9]. The Complete Versus culprit-Lesion only PRimary PCI trial indicated that patients who received in-hospital complete revascularization had lower composite risk of all-cause death, recurrent MI, heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization at 1 year [10]. In addition, the Third DANish Study of Optimal Acute Treatment of Patients with STEMI-PRImary PCI in MULTIvessel Disease and the Compare-Acute trials indicated significant benefit of immediate or complete revascularization regarding adverse cardiac events compared with culprit-only PCI [11, 12]. Furthermore, the studies conducted by Cui et al. and Toyota et al. with 5-year information confirmed and extended the results of previous studies with short- or medium-term follow-up period [24, 30].
Diabetes mellitus is both an important risk factor for the development of CAD [20, 31] and a major determinant of poor clinical outcomes in patients with CAD [1418]. Patients with diabetes mellitus often have a high incidence of complex disease with smaller vessel size, longer lesion length, and higher plaque burden [32]. The Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome Project which included 63,450 patients from 150 tertiary hospitals revealed that the prevalence of diabetes/possible diabetes was 36.8% in STEMI patients, which was a little higher than the finding of our study. In addition, diabetic/possible diabetic patients had 2.4-fold increased risk of in-hospital mortality and a twofold increased risk of a combination of cardiac death, recurrent MI, stent thrombosis or stroke compared with nondiabetic patients [14]. Jung et al. [15] reported that people with diabetes had a two- to sixfold higher risk of major adverse cardiac events than people without diabetes in South Korea. A report from Spain showed that patients with MI and diabetes had a significantly 15% higher in-hospital mortality than nondiabetic patients [16]. A systematic review and meta-analysis with a total of 1,225,174 patients revealed an increased risk of early mortality (odds ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.59 to 1.74) and 6–12-month mortality (odds ratio 1.86, 95% CI 1.75 to 1.97) in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome [17]. Besides, Klempfner et al. [18] enrolled 11, 472 patients with acute coronary syndrome found that diabetes was independently associated with a significantly increased mortality risk (39%) at 1 year compared with nondiabetic patients. Moreover, the incidence of ischemic events was consistently higher in diabetic patients after PCI or coronary artery bypass graft surgery [21, 22]. The latest guideline has classified STEMI patients with diabetes as a special population and presented specific sections for the management of these patients in consideration of their extremely high risk [13]. Therefore, diabetes status might be a major factor in the choice of revascularization strategy in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.
Unfortunately, it remains undetermined whether diabetes has an effect on the outcomes of these patients who received staged complete revascularization or culprit-only PCI. Only a small number of patients with diabetes were included in previous RCTs and this high-risk group of patients were underrepresented [912]. Hamza et al. enrolled 100 diabetic patients with STMEI and multivessel disease to randomly receive staged complete revascularization (n = 50) or culprit-only PCI (n = 50). After 6-month follow-up, they found that staged complete revascularization was significantly associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiac events (6% vs. 24%, P = 0.01), primarily due to reduction in ischemia-driven revascularization in the complete PCI group (2% vs. 12%; P = 0.047). However, their sample size was relatively small and the follow-up period was relatively short [23]. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the effect of diabetes on clinical outcomes differs according to different revascularization strategies.
In this study, STEMI patients with and without diabetes mellitus showed similar risks of ischemic events. Furthermore, diabetes was not a predictor of the primary endpoint of MACCE or the secondary outcomes at 5 years in multivariate analysis, while the strategy of culprit-only PCI was an independent predictor of the less favorable outcomes in these patients. Patients with STEMI and multivessel disease was a higher-risk population in STEMI patients, thus the impact of revascularization strategy on prognosis is more important than the impact of diabetes status on prognosis in our study. Although with increased risk of perioperative events, early revascularization of nonculprit lesions can reduce ischemic burden, stabilize vulnerable plaque, and reduce the long-term incidence of ischemic events [33]. Nonetheless, the comparable results between the diabetic and nondiabetic groups here could be partially explained, since data on the length of illness and details of antidiabetic therapy was not available in our study, which might have an effect on prognosis in diabetic patients. Actually, inappropriate antidiabetic therapy can significantly increase the risk of mortality [34].
The most important finding of the present study might be that the interactions between diabetes status and revascularization assignment tended to be significant for the outcomes of MACCE, MI, unplanned revascularization, and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke at 5 years, which were confirmed by propensity score-matching analysis. In nondiabetic patients, the 5-year risks of MACCE, MI, unplanned revascularization, and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke were significantly lower in staged PCI group than those in culprit-only PCI group, whereas the incidences of all the outcomes were similar between the two revascularization strategies in diabetic patients. In other words, the strategy of staged complete revascularization lost its advantage in patients with diabetes and multivessel disease, which was contrary to the results of study conducted by Hamza et al. In clinical scenarios, the diffuse and rapidly progressive forms of CAD in diabetic patients may lead to more stent implantation characterized by longer length and smaller diameter, which is associated with worse outcomes. Although the new-generation drug-eluting stent has been widely used in clinical practice, the morbidity and mortality are still high in diabetic patients undergoing PCI and diabetes mellitus remains a risk factor for restenosis and stent thrombosis [32, 35]. Considering the staged PCI of nonculprit vessels brings no additional benefits to diabetic patients with multivessel disease as compared with culprit-only PCI, it becomes even more important to choose an optimal hypoglycemic regimen in this population. Recently, several studies have found that the new antidiabetic drugs, i.e., sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists can lower blood glucose levels and mortality risks [3639]. Henceforward, these new types of drugs should be given a full consideration in the treatment of diabetic patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.

Limitations

There are several limitations of our study. First, as a single-center, nonrandomized study, our research is limited by unbalanced baseline characteristics and selection bias. Although we performed rigorous multivariable-adjusted analysis and propensity score-matching analysis, there might still be some unmeasured confounders. Second, our results were mainly derived from subgroup analysis of a cohort study, thus we might have inadequate statistical power to detect differences in clinical events in diabetic patients and the results should be interpreted as hypothesis generating. Moreover, the number of subjects with diabetes was modest (371), and possibly not all confounders were identified. Therefore, further larger-scale investigation in dedicated trials of diabetic patients is warranted. Third, the data on length of illness and details of antidiabetic therapy were not collected in the study. Finally, the significance of nonculprit lesions was routinely assessed on angiography other than ischemia testing, for example, fractional flow reserve or noninvasive physiological stress test for most patients.

Conclusions

In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, diabetes mellitus is not an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular events at 5 years. In nondiabetic patients, an approach of staged complete revascularization is superior to culprit-only PCI, whereas the advantage of staged PCI is attenuated in diabetic patients. Further studies are needed to evaluate the prognostic impact of diabetes on outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease requiring revascularization procedures.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12933-019-0923-0.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.
The present study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University (No.: 2012001). Informed consent was exempt by the committee.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted 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. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Sorajja P, Gersh BJ, Cox DA, McLaughlin MG, Zimetbaum P, Costantini C, Stuckey T, Tcheng JE, Mehran R, Lansky AJ, et al. Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(14):1709–16.CrossRef Sorajja P, Gersh BJ, Cox DA, McLaughlin MG, Zimetbaum P, Costantini C, Stuckey T, Tcheng JE, Mehran R, Lansky AJ, et al. Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(14):1709–16.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Park DW, Clare RM, Schulte PJ, Pieper KS, Shaw LK, Califf RM, Ohman EM, Van de Werf F, Hirji S, Harrington RA, et al. Extent, location, and clinical significance of non-infarct-related coronary artery disease among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2014;312(19):2019–27.CrossRef Park DW, Clare RM, Schulte PJ, Pieper KS, Shaw LK, Califf RM, Ohman EM, Van de Werf F, Hirji S, Harrington RA, et al. Extent, location, and clinical significance of non-infarct-related coronary artery disease among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2014;312(19):2019–27.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Dambrink JH, Debrauwere JP, van ‘t Hof AW, Ottervanger JP, Gosselink AT, Hoorntje JC, de Boer MJ, Suryapranata H. Non-culprit lesions detected during primary PCI: treat invasively or follow the guidelines? EuroIntervention. 2010;5(8):968–75.CrossRef Dambrink JH, Debrauwere JP, van ‘t Hof AW, Ottervanger JP, Gosselink AT, Hoorntje JC, de Boer MJ, Suryapranata H. Non-culprit lesions detected during primary PCI: treat invasively or follow the guidelines? EuroIntervention. 2010;5(8):968–75.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Ghani A, Dambrink JH, van ‘t Hof AW, Ottervanger JP, Gosselink AT, Hoorntje JC. Treatment of non-culprit lesions detected during primary PCI: long-term follow-up of a randomised clinical trial. Neth Heart J. 2012;20(9):347–53.CrossRef Ghani A, Dambrink JH, van ‘t Hof AW, Ottervanger JP, Gosselink AT, Hoorntje JC. Treatment of non-culprit lesions detected during primary PCI: long-term follow-up of a randomised clinical trial. Neth Heart J. 2012;20(9):347–53.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Cavender MA, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, Peterson ED, Weintraub WS, Rao SV. Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2009;104(4):507–13.CrossRef Cavender MA, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, Peterson ED, Weintraub WS, Rao SV. Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2009;104(4):507–13.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Dziewierz A, Siudak Z, Rakowski T, Zasada W, Dubiel JS, Dudek D. Impact of multivessel coronary artery disease and noninfarct-related artery revascularization on outcome of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (from the EUROTRANSFER Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(3):342–7.CrossRef Dziewierz A, Siudak Z, Rakowski T, Zasada W, Dubiel JS, Dudek D. Impact of multivessel coronary artery disease and noninfarct-related artery revascularization on outcome of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (from the EUROTRANSFER Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(3):342–7.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Walford G, Holmes DR Jr, Jacobs AK, Stamato NJ, Venditti FJ, Sharma S, King SB 3rd. Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(1):22–31.CrossRef Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Walford G, Holmes DR Jr, Jacobs AK, Stamato NJ, Venditti FJ, Sharma S, King SB 3rd. Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(1):22–31.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Kornowski R, Mehran R, Dangas G, Nikolsky E, Assali A, Claessen BE, Gersh BJ, Wong SC, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, et al. Prognostic impact of staged versus “one-time” multivessel percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(7):704–11.CrossRef Kornowski R, Mehran R, Dangas G, Nikolsky E, Assali A, Claessen BE, Gersh BJ, Wong SC, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, et al. Prognostic impact of staged versus “one-time” multivessel percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(7):704–11.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ, Chase AJ, Edwards RJ, Hughes LO, Berry C, Oldroyd KG, Investigators P. Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1115–23.CrossRef Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ, Chase AJ, Edwards RJ, Hughes LO, Berry C, Oldroyd KG, Investigators P. Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1115–23.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ, Greenwood JP, Sasikaran T, Curzen N, Blackman DJ, Dalby M, Fairbrother KL, Banya W, et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(10):963–72.CrossRef Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ, Greenwood JP, Sasikaran T, Curzen N, Blackman DJ, Dalby M, Fairbrother KL, Banya W, et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(10):963–72.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Engstrom T, Kelbaek H, Helqvist S, Hofsten DE, Klovgaard L, Holmvang L, Jorgensen E, Pedersen F, Saunamaki K, Clemmensen P, et al. Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386(9994):665–71.CrossRef Engstrom T, Kelbaek H, Helqvist S, Hofsten DE, Klovgaard L, Holmvang L, Jorgensen E, Pedersen F, Saunamaki K, Clemmensen P, et al. Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386(9994):665–71.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Smits PC, Abdel-Wahab M, Neumann FJ, Boxma-de Klerk BM, Lunde K, Schotborgh CE, Piroth Z, Horak D, Wlodarczak A, Ong PJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(13):1234–44.CrossRef Smits PC, Abdel-Wahab M, Neumann FJ, Boxma-de Klerk BM, Lunde K, Schotborgh CE, Piroth Z, Horak D, Wlodarczak A, Ong PJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(13):1234–44.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, Caforio ALP, Crea F, Goudevenos JA, Halvorsen S, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018;39(2):119–77.CrossRef Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, Caforio ALP, Crea F, Goudevenos JA, Halvorsen S, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018;39(2):119–77.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhou M, Liu J, Hao Y, Liu J, Huo Y, Smith SC Jr, Ge J, Ma C, Han Y, Fonarow GC, et al. Prevalence and in-hospital outcomes of diabetes among patients with acute coronary syndrome in China: findings from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome Project. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):147.CrossRef Zhou M, Liu J, Hao Y, Liu J, Huo Y, Smith SC Jr, Ge J, Ma C, Han Y, Fonarow GC, et al. Prevalence and in-hospital outcomes of diabetes among patients with acute coronary syndrome in China: findings from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome Project. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):147.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Jung CH, Chung JO, Han K, Ko SH, Ko KS, Park JY, Taskforce Team of Diabetes Fact Sheet of the Korean Diabetes. Improved trends in cardiovascular complications among subjects with type 2 diabetes in Korea: a nationwide study (2006–2013). Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2017;16(1):1.CrossRef Jung CH, Chung JO, Han K, Ko SH, Ko KS, Park JY, Taskforce Team of Diabetes Fact Sheet of the Korean Diabetes. Improved trends in cardiovascular complications among subjects with type 2 diabetes in Korea: a nationwide study (2006–2013). Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2017;16(1):1.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat de Miguel-Yanes JM, Jimenez-Garcia R, Hernandez-Barrera V, Mendez-Bailon M, de Miguel-Diez J, Lopez-de-Andres A. Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus on in-hospital-mortality after major cardiovascular events in Spain (2002–2014). Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2017;16(1):126.CrossRef de Miguel-Yanes JM, Jimenez-Garcia R, Hernandez-Barrera V, Mendez-Bailon M, de Miguel-Diez J, Lopez-de-Andres A. Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus on in-hospital-mortality after major cardiovascular events in Spain (2002–2014). Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2017;16(1):126.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Bauters C, Lemesle G, de Groote P, Lamblin N. A systematic review and meta-regression of temporal trends in the excess mortality associated with diabetes mellitus after myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol. 2016;217:109–21.CrossRef Bauters C, Lemesle G, de Groote P, Lamblin N. A systematic review and meta-regression of temporal trends in the excess mortality associated with diabetes mellitus after myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol. 2016;217:109–21.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Klempfner R, Elis A, Matezky S, Keren G, Roth A, Finkelstein A, Banai S, Goldenberg I, Fisman EZ, Tenenbaum A, et al. Temporal trends in management and outcome of diabetic and non-diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS): residual risk of long-term mortality persists: insights from the ACS Israeli Survey (ACSIS) 2000–2010. Int J Cardiol. 2015;179:546–51.CrossRef Klempfner R, Elis A, Matezky S, Keren G, Roth A, Finkelstein A, Banai S, Goldenberg I, Fisman EZ, Tenenbaum A, et al. Temporal trends in management and outcome of diabetic and non-diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS): residual risk of long-term mortality persists: insights from the ACS Israeli Survey (ACSIS) 2000–2010. Int J Cardiol. 2015;179:546–51.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Cho NH, Shaw JE, Karuranga S, Huang Y, da Rocha Fernandes JD, Ohlrogge AW, Malanda B. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:271–81.CrossRef Cho NH, Shaw JE, Karuranga S, Huang Y, da Rocha Fernandes JD, Ohlrogge AW, Malanda B. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:271–81.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Einarson TR, Acs A, Ludwig C, Panton UH. Prevalence of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: a systematic literature review of scientific evidence from across the world in 2007–2017. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):83.CrossRef Einarson TR, Acs A, Ludwig C, Panton UH. Prevalence of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: a systematic literature review of scientific evidence from across the world in 2007–2017. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):83.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Elezi S, Kastrati A, Pache J, Wehinger A, Hadamitzky M, Dirschinger J, Neumann FJ, Schomig A. Diabetes mellitus and the clinical and angiographic outcome after coronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32(7):1866–73.CrossRef Elezi S, Kastrati A, Pache J, Wehinger A, Hadamitzky M, Dirschinger J, Neumann FJ, Schomig A. Diabetes mellitus and the clinical and angiographic outcome after coronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32(7):1866–73.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Kogan A, Ram E, Levin S, Fisman EZ, Tenenbaum A, Raanani E, Sternik L. Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus on short- and long-term mortality after coronary artery bypass surgery. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):151.CrossRef Kogan A, Ram E, Levin S, Fisman EZ, Tenenbaum A, Raanani E, Sternik L. Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus on short- and long-term mortality after coronary artery bypass surgery. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):151.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Hamza M, Mahmoud N, Elgendy IY. A randomized trial of complete versus culprit-only revascularization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction and multi vessel disease. J Interv Cardiol. 2016;29(3):241–7.CrossRef Hamza M, Mahmoud N, Elgendy IY. A randomized trial of complete versus culprit-only revascularization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction and multi vessel disease. J Interv Cardiol. 2016;29(3):241–7.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Cui K, Lyu S, Song X, Liu H, Yuan F, Xu F, Zhang M, Wang W, Zhang M, Zhang D, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of staged percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary disease. Am J Cardiol. 2019;124(3):334–42.CrossRef Cui K, Lyu S, Song X, Liu H, Yuan F, Xu F, Zhang M, Wang W, Zhang M, Zhang D, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of staged percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary disease. Am J Cardiol. 2019;124(3):334–42.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, Chambers CE, Ellis SG, Guyton RA, Hollenberg SM, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(10):1235–50.CrossRef Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, Chambers CE, Ellis SG, Guyton RA, Hollenberg SM, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(10):1235–50.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Murphy SW, Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS. Contrast nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11(1):177–82.PubMed Murphy SW, Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS. Contrast nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11(1):177–82.PubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehran R, Nikolsky E. Contrast-induced nephropathy: definition, epidemiology, and patients at risk. Kidney Int Suppl. 2006;100:S11–5.CrossRef Mehran R, Nikolsky E. Contrast-induced nephropathy: definition, epidemiology, and patients at risk. Kidney Int Suppl. 2006;100:S11–5.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, White HD, Group ESCSD. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Eur Heart J. 2019;40(3):237–69.CrossRef Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, White HD, Group ESCSD. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Eur Heart J. 2019;40(3):237–69.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Barber M, Stott DJ, Langhorne P. An internationally agreed definition of progressing stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(3):255–6 (author reply 256–7).CrossRef Barber M, Stott DJ, Langhorne P. An internationally agreed definition of progressing stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(3):255–6 (author reply 256–7).CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Toyota T, Shiomi H, Taniguchi T, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Horie M, Kimura T, Investigators CR-KAR. Culprit vessel-only vs. staged multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention strategies in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circ J. 2016;80(2):371–8.CrossRef Toyota T, Shiomi H, Taniguchi T, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Horie M, Kimura T, Investigators CR-KAR. Culprit vessel-only vs. staged multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention strategies in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circ J. 2016;80(2):371–8.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Kengne AP, Turnbull F, MacMahon S. The Framingham Study, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease: turning back the clock. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2010;53(1):45–51.CrossRef Kengne AP, Turnbull F, MacMahon S. The Framingham Study, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease: turning back the clock. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2010;53(1):45–51.CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat West NE, Ruygrok PN, Disco CM, Webster MW, Lindeboom WK, O’Neill WW, Mercado NF, Serruys PW. Clinical and angiographic predictors of restenosis after stent deployment in diabetic patients. Circulation. 2004;109(7):867–73.CrossRef West NE, Ruygrok PN, Disco CM, Webster MW, Lindeboom WK, O’Neill WW, Mercado NF, Serruys PW. Clinical and angiographic predictors of restenosis after stent deployment in diabetic patients. Circulation. 2004;109(7):867–73.CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Lu DY, Zhong M, Feldman DN. Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in STEMI: a contemporary review. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2018;20(5):41.CrossRef Lu DY, Zhong M, Feldman DN. Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in STEMI: a contemporary review. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2018;20(5):41.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Deedwania P, Kosiborod M, Barrett E, Ceriello A, Isley W, Mazzone T, Raskin P, American Heart Association Diabetes Committee of the Council on Nutrition PA, Metabolism. Hyperglycemia and acute coronary syndrome: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Diabetes Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. Circulation. 2008;117(12):1610–9.CrossRef Deedwania P, Kosiborod M, Barrett E, Ceriello A, Isley W, Mazzone T, Raskin P, American Heart Association Diabetes Committee of the Council on Nutrition PA, Metabolism. Hyperglycemia and acute coronary syndrome: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Diabetes Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. Circulation. 2008;117(12):1610–9.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Alfonso F, Rivero F. Coronary revascularization in diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(46):3448–51.CrossRef Alfonso F, Rivero F. Coronary revascularization in diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(46):3448–51.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Zheng SL, Roddick AJ, Aghar-Jaffar R, Shun-Shin MJ, Francis D, Oliver N, Meeran K. Association between use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors with all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1580–91.CrossRef Zheng SL, Roddick AJ, Aghar-Jaffar R, Shun-Shin MJ, Francis D, Oliver N, Meeran K. Association between use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors with all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1580–91.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhuang XD, He X, Yang DY, Guo Y, He JG, Xiao HP, Liao XX. Comparative cardiovascular outcomes in the era of novel anti-diabetic agents: a comprehensive network meta-analysis of 166,371 participants from 170 randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):79.CrossRef Zhuang XD, He X, Yang DY, Guo Y, He JG, Xiao HP, Liao XX. Comparative cardiovascular outcomes in the era of novel anti-diabetic agents: a comprehensive network meta-analysis of 166,371 participants from 170 randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):79.CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, Im K, Goodrich EL, Furtado RHM, Bonaca MP, Mosenzon O, Kato ET, Cahn A, et al. Comparison of the effects of glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2019;139(17):2022–31.CrossRef Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, Im K, Goodrich EL, Furtado RHM, Bonaca MP, Mosenzon O, Kato ET, Cahn A, et al. Comparison of the effects of glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2019;139(17):2022–31.CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Tanaka A, Node K. Clinical application of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in cardiovascular disease: lessons from recent clinical cardiovascular outcomes trials. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):85.CrossRef Tanaka A, Node K. Clinical application of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in cardiovascular disease: lessons from recent clinical cardiovascular outcomes trials. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):85.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Staged complete revascularization or culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel coronary artery disease in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and diabetes
verfasst von
Kongyong Cui
Shuzheng Lyu
Hong Liu
Xiantao Song
Fei Yuan
Feng Xu
Min Zhang
Wei Wang
Mingduo Zhang
Dongfeng Zhang
Jinfan Tian
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2019
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Cardiovascular Diabetology / Ausgabe 1/2019
Elektronische ISSN: 1475-2840
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-019-0923-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Cardiovascular Diabetology 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 Hypotonie Nachrichten

Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

25.04.2024 Hypertonie Nachrichten

Beginnen ältere Männer im Pflegeheim eine Antihypertensiva-Therapie, dann ist die Frakturrate in den folgenden 30 Tagen mehr als verdoppelt. Besonders häufig stürzen Demenzkranke und Männer, die erstmals Blutdrucksenker nehmen. Dafür spricht eine Analyse unter US-Veteranen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.