Abstract
BackgroundDiabetes is associated with a high risk of death due to coronary artery disease (CAD). People with diabetes suffering from CAD are frequently treated with revascularization procedures. We aim to compare trends in the use and outcomes of coronary revascularization procedures in diabetic and non-diabetic patients in Spain between 2001 and 2011.MethodsWe identified all patients who had undergone coronary revascularization procedures, percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgeries, using national hospital discharge data. Discharges were grouped by diabetes status: type 2 diabetes and no diabetes. The incidence of discharges attributed to coronary revascularization procedures were calculated stratified by diabetes status. We calculated length of stay and in-hospital mortality (IHM). We apply joinpoint log-linear regression to identify the years in which changes in tendency occurred in the use of PCI and CABG in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Multivariate analysis was adjusted by age, sex, year and comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index).ResultsFrom 2001 to 2011, 434,108 PCIs and 79,986 CABGs were performed. According to the results of the joinpoint analysis, we found that sex and age-adjusted use of PCI increased by 31.4% per year from 2001 to 2003, by 15.9% per year from 2003 to 2006 and by 3.8% per year from 2006 to 2011 in patients with diabetes. IHM among patients with diabetes who underwent a PCI did not change significantly over the entire study period (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97-1.00).Among patients with diabetes who underwent a CABG, the sex and age-adjusted CABG incidence rate increased by 10.4% per year from 2001 to 2003, and then decreased by 1.1% through 2011. Diabetic patients who underwent a CABG had a 0.67 (95% CI 0.63-0.71) times lower probability of dying during hospitalization than those without diabetes.ConclusionsThe annual percent change in PCI procedures increased in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Higher comorbidity and the female gender are associated with a higher IHM in PCI procedures. In diabetic and non-diabetic patients, we found a decrease in the use of CABG procedures. IHM was higher in patients without diabetes than in those with diabetes.
Highlights
Diabetes is associated with a high risk of death due to coronary artery disease (CAD)
According to the results of the joinpoint analysis, we found that sex and age-adjusted use of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) increased by 31.4% per year from 2001 to 2003, by 15.9% per year from 2003 to 2006 and by 3.8% per year from 2006 to 2011 in patients with type 2 diabetes (Figure 1)
Hassan et al (2010) explain that the greater improvement in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in-hospital mortality outcome versus PCI may be attributable to advanced myocardial protection techniques, superior perioperative critical care, and improved patient selection and surgical timing than in PCI patients [31]. Among those who underwent a CABG, we found that IHM was higher in patients without diabetes than in those with type 2 diabetes
Summary
Diabetes is associated with a high risk of death due to coronary artery disease (CAD). People with diabetes suffering from CAD are frequently treated with revascularization procedures. We aim to compare trends in the use and outcomes of coronary revascularization procedures in diabetic and non-diabetic patients in Spain between 2001 and 2011. People with diabetes represent an increasing proportion of CAD patients, many of whom are treated with revascularization procedures [8]. 25% of all coronary revascularization procedures performed each year in the US are done on patients with diabetes [9]. Coronary revascularization for patients with diabetes can be achieved using coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgeries or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) [10]. While PCI is more commonly used in patients affected by singlevessel CAD, the best strategy for patients with advanced CAD is still debated, due to a higher repeat revascularization rate at 1-year follow-up in patients treated using PCI [11]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
