Cited by 64Coronary Interventions and DiagnosticsCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsAcute Myocardial Infarction Research

Medical Treatment and Revascularization Options in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Disease

Open access
Mancini, G.B. John, Farkouh, Michael E., Brooks, Maria M., Chaitman, Bernard R., Boden, William E., Vlachos, Helen, Hartigan, Pamela M., Siami, Flora S. +4 more·2016·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Background There are scant outcomes data in patients with type 2 diabetes and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) stratified by detailed angiographic burden of CAD or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).Objectives This study determined the effect of optimal medical therapy (OMT), with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), on long-term outcomes with respect to LVEF and number of diseased vessels, including proximal left anterior descending artery involvement.Methods A patient-level pooled analysis was undertaken in 3 federally-funded trials. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, adjusted for trial and randomization strategy.Results Among 5,034 subjects, 15% had LVEF <50%, 77% had multivessel CAD, and 28% had proximal left anterior descending artery involvement. During a median 4.5-year follow-up, CABG + OMT was superior to PCI + OMT for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.85; p = 0.0002), death (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.96; p = 0.024), and MI (HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.67; p = 0.0001), but not stroke (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.96 to 2.48; p = 0.074). CABG + OMT was also superior to OMT alone for prevention of the primary endpoint (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.97; p = 0.022) and MI (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.74; p = 0.0001), and was superior to PCI + OMT for the primary endpoint in patients with 3-vessel CAD (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.89; p = 0.002) and normal LVEF (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.87; p = 0.0012). There were no significant differences in OMT versus PCI + OMT.Conclusions CABG + OMT reduced the primary endpoint during long-term follow-up in patients with type 2 diabetes and stable CAD, supporting this as the preferred management strategy.

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.2016.06.021

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Tu B, Rich B, Labos C, et al. Coronary revas- cularization in diabetic patients: a systematic re- view and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014;161:724-32.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mancini, G. B. J., Farkouh, M. E., Brooks, M. M., Chaitman, B. R., Boden, W. E., Vlachos, H., Hartigan, P. M., Siami, F. S., Sidhu, M. S., Bittner, V., Frye, R., & Fuster, V.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Saint Louis University (US)
  • Albany Medical College (US)
  • Veterans Administration (US)
  • New England Research Institutes (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Mancini, G.B. John
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
68
Issue
10
Pages
985-995
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2517350955
Cited by
64
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 4
FWCI
11.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cordis
  • AstraZeneca
  • Sanofi
  • Amgen
  • Pfizer
  • Gilead Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, optimal medical therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction, multivessel coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiovascular events, stroke, revascularization strategy, pooled analysis of clinical trials, long-term outcomes
MeSH terms
Coronary Artery Bypass, Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Stroke Volume, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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