Cited by 290Coronary Interventions and DiagnosticsCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients With Left Main and/or 3-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease

Open access
Banning, Adrian P., Westaby, Stephen, Morice, Marie-Claude, Kappetein, A. Pieter, Mohr, Friedrich W., Berti, Sergio, Glauber, Mattia, Kellett, Mirle A. +4 more·2010·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Objectives This study was designed to compare contemporary surgical revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) versus TAXUS Express (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with left main and/or 3-vessel disease. Background Although the prevalence of diabetes mellitus is increasing, the optimal coronary revascularization strategy in diabetic patients with complex multivessel disease remains controversial. Methods The SYNTAX (SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery) study randomly assigned 1,800 patients (452 with medically treated diabetes) to receive PES or CABG. Results The overall 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rate was higher among diabetic patients treated with PES compared with CABG, but the revascularization method did not impact the death/stroke/myocardial infarction rate for nondiabetic patients (6.8% CABG vs. 6.8% PES, p = 0.97) or for diabetic patients (10.3% CABG vs. 10.1% PES, p = 0.96). The presence of diabetes was associated with significantly increased mortality after either revascularization treatment. The incidence of stroke was higher among nondiabetic patients after CABG (2.2% vs. PES 0.5%, p = 0.006). Compared with CABG, mortality was higher after PES use for diabetic patients with highly complex lesions (4.1% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.04). Revascularization with PES resulted in higher repeat revascularization for nondiabetic patients (5.7% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001) and diabetic patients (6.4% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Subgroup analyses suggest that the 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rate is higher among diabetic patients with left main and/or 3-vessel disease treated with PES compared with CABG, driven by an increase in repeat revascularization. However, the composite safety end point (death/stroke/myocardial infarction) is comparable between the 2 treatment options for diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Although further study is needed, these exploratory results may extend the evidence for PES use in selected patients with less complex left main and/or 3-vessel lesions. (SYNergy Between PCI With TAXus and Cardiac Surgery [SYNTAX]; NCT00114972).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.09.057

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 290

Authors
Banning, A. P., Westaby, S., Morice, M.-C., Kappetein, A. P., Mohr, F. W., Berti, S., Glauber, M., Kellett, M. A., Kramer, R. S., Leadley, K., Dawkins, K. D., & Serruys, P. W.
Affiliations
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Hôpital Privé Jacques Cartier (FR)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • Istituto di Fisiologia Clinica (IT)
  • Maine Medical Center (US)
  • Boston Scientific (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Banning, Adrian P.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-03
Volume
55
Issue
11
Pages
1067-1075
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120181058
Cited by
290
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 59
FWCI
54.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Boston Scientific
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, coronary artery bypass grafting, paclitaxel-eluting stents, left main coronary artery disease, multivessel coronary artery disease, coronary revascularization, SYNTAX trial, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, repeat revascularization, mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, subgroup analysis, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery disease
MeSH terms
Aged, Coronary Artery Bypass, Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Angiopathies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary, Treatment Outcome, Paclitaxel, Tubulin Modulators, Drug-Eluting Stents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review