Abstract

There is no evidence that the indications for myocardial revascularization differ between patients with and without diabetes. Accepted indications include stable angina that cannot be adequately managed by medication, acute coronary syndromes, severely reduced left ventricular (LV) function due to coronary artery disease, left main stenosis, and advanced coronary artery disease causing substantial inducible ischemia. The recent ISCHEMIA trial challenged the criterion of ischemia. With respect to its primary endpoint, ISCHEMIA showed no benefit of an invasive strategy with systematic myocardial revascularization in patients with stable angina and moderate-to-severe ischemia compared with aconservative strategy. However, myocardial revascularization resulted in astatistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in angina and an improvement in quality of life. There was asignificant reduction in prognostically relevant spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) in the longterm, which came at the cost of an increased rate of peri-interventional MI that was of minor prognostic relevance. The risk profile and number of patients included in the ISCHEMIA trial, as well as the duration of follow-up, are not sufficient to show that the lower incidence of spontaneous infarcts improved survival. In ISCHEMIA, there was no heterogeneity in treatment effect depending on diabetes.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.