Services on Demand
- Cited by SciELO
- Access statistics
- Cited by Google
- Similars in SciELO
- Similars in Google
On-line version ISSN 2179-8397
Rev. Bras. Cardiol. Invasiva vol.20 no.2 São Paulo Apr./June 2012
Leonardo dos Santos CoelhoI; Marcelo José de Carvalho CantarelliII; Hélio José Castello JuniorIII; Rosaly GonçalvesIV; Silvio GioppatoV; Evandro Karlo Pracchia RibeiroVI; João Batista de Freitas GuimarãesVII; Julio César Francisco VardiVIII; Patricia Teixeira da SilvaIX; Roberto Simões de AlmeidaX; Fabio Peixoto GanassinXI; Marcelo Mendes FarinazzoXII
ISpecialist in Cardiology. Intern at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
IIPhD in Cardiology. Specialist in Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology. Coordinator of the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
IIIMaster's degree in Cardiology. Specialist in Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology. MBA in Health Management. Coordinator of the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
IVMaster's degree in Cardiology. Specialist in Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology. Assistant Physician Médico at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
VMaster's degree in Cardiology. Specialist in Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology. Assistant Physician at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
VISpecialist in Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology. Assistant Physician at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
VIISpecialist in Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology. Assistant Physician at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
VIIISpecialist in Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology. Assistant Physician at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
IXSpecialist in Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology. Assistant Physician at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
XSpecialist in Cardiology. Intern at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
XIIntern at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
XIIIntern at the Service of Haemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology at Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil
BACKGROUND: There are few available reports in the literature assessing in-hospital outcomes of diabetic patients currently undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This article aimed to assess the acute post-PCI outcomes of a large series of diabetic and non-diabetic patients treated consecutively.
METHODS: From August 2006 to February 2012, 6,011patients were submitted to PCI and included in the registry of the Hospital Bandeirantes. The techniques and devices for the procedure were chosen by the surgeons. Clinical outcomes were registered at the time of hospital discharge.
RESULTS: Diabetic patients were older and more frequently females, with a higher prevalence of comorbidities and risk factors for coronary artery disease, except for smoking. However, most of the characteristics related to lesion complexity did not differ between groups. In diabetics, the number of treated vessels (1.6 ± 0.8 vs. 1.4 ± 0.7; P < 0.01) was higher, and the use of smaller stents (2.9 ± 0.5 mm vs. 3 ± 0.5 mm; P < 0.01) was more frequent. A procedural success rate of 95.5% was achieved in both groups. In-hospital outcomes did not differ in the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (3.3% vs. 2.8%; P = 0.79), death (1% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.90), acute myocardial infarction (2% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.35), stroke (0.1% in both groups), and emergency revascularisation (0.3% in both groups). Arterial hypertension was the variable that best explained the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [odds ratio (OR): 2.68, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.13-6.38; P = 0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes mellitus adds more clinical complexity to PCI but has no significant impact on in-hospital outcomes.
Descriptors: Diabetes mellitus. Angioplasty. Stents.
The number of diabetic individuals is increasing due to population growth and aging, greater urbanisation, and higher prevalence of obesity and sedentary lifestyle. Type 2diabetes has become a global epidemic, with an estimated 173 million diabetic individuals in 2002. This number is projected to reach 300 million in 2030.1
Diabetes is a known risk factor for the development of atherosclerosis, which is a major cause of mortality in this group of patients.2 Patients with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of cardiovascular events and death compared with those without the disease and account for approximately one-third of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States.3
Percutaneous and surgical myocardial revascularisation therapies are important tools in the treatment of coronary artery disease, which impacts quality of life and survival. Results among diabetics, however, are less pronounced, with a greater occurrence of new revascularisations in late follow-up, especially in patients with multivessel disease.4 The complexity of coronary lesions, the rapid progression of atherosclerotic disease, and the higher rates of restenosis, even when using drug-eluting stents, are some of the reasons for these results.
However, few studies are currently available regarding the in-hospital results of PCI in diabetic patients. This article aimed to evaluate the acute post-PCI outcomes of a large series of consecutively treated diabetic and non-diabetic patients.
From August, 2006 to February, 2012, 6,011 consecutive patients underwent PCI and were included in the Hospital Bandeirantes Registry. Data were collected prospectively and stored in a computerised database.
Clinical outcomes were registered at the time of hospital discharge.
Almost all interventions were conducted by femoral access, and radial access was used as an alternative in a few cases. The materials and technique used during the procedure and the need for glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were chosen by the surgeons. Unfractionated heparin was used at the beginning of the procedure at a dose of 70 U/kg to 100 U/kg, except in patients who were already using low molecular-weight heparin.
All patients received antiplatelet therapy in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) with a loading dose of 300 mg and a maintenance dose of 100 mg/day to 200 mg/day and a clopidogrel loading dose of 300 mg to 600 mg with a maintenance dose of 75 mg/day. The femoral sheaths were removed four hours after the start of heparinisation. The radial sheaths were removed immediately after the procedure.
Angiographic analysis and definitions
The analyses were performed in at least two orthogonal projections by experienced technicians using digital quantitative angiography. This study used the same angiographic criteria listed in the database of the National Centre of Cardiovascular Interventions (Central Nacional de Intervenções Cardiovasculares - CENIC) of the Brazilian Society of Interventional Cardiology. The type of lesion was classified according to the criteria of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA).5 The thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) classification was used to determine the pre- and post-procedural coronary flow.6 Procedural success was defined as achievement of angiographic success (residual stenosis < 30% with TIMI flow 3) and absence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) comprising death, periprocedural myocardial infarction, stroke, and emergency coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.7
Deaths from any cause were recorded, and cardiac mortality was defined as mortality resulting from cardiogenic shock, heart failure, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiac rupture, arrhythmia, or sudden death during the hospitalisation period. Peri-PCI infarction was defined by the reappearance of angina symptoms with electrocardiographic alterations (new ST-segment elevation or new Q waves) and/or angiographic evidence of target vessel occlusion. Emergency CABG was considered when performed immediately after the PCI.
The data, stored in an Oracle database, were Oracle database were plotted in Excel spreadsheets and analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), release 15.0. Continuous variables were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, and categorical variables were expressed as absolute numbers and percentages. Associations between continuous variables were evaluated using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. Associations between categorical variables were evaluated by chi-aquared or Fisher's exact tests or likelihood ratios when appropriate. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Simple and multiple logistic regression models were applied to identify MACCE predictors.
The clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. The diabetic group was 3 years older (64.1years vs. 60.9 years; P < 0.01), with a higher proportion of women (37.1% vs. 29.4%; P < 0.01) and a higher body mass index (28 ± 4.8 kg/m2 vs. 26.8 ± 4.3 kg/m2; P < 0.01) compared with non-diabetics. Moreover, diabetics had a predominance of hypertension (86.4% vs. 69.3%; P < 0.01), dyslipidemia (47.9% vs. 30.4%; P < 0.01), chronic kidney failure (4.2% vs. 2%; P < 0.01), peripheral vascular disease (4.4% vs. 2%; P < 0.01), previous AMI (19.2% vs. 15.4%; P < 0.01), stroke (3.9% vs. 2.6%; P < 0.01), CABG (15.6% vs. 8.6%; P < 0.01), and PCI (23.9% vs. 18.8%; P < 0.01). Smoking was the only coronary risk factor that was predominant among non-diabetics (17% vs. 28.3%; P < 0.01). The clinical presentation was different between groups (P < 0.01); acute coronary syndrome without ST segment elevation was more frequent in the diabetic group (22.6% vs. 18.7%) and AMI with ST segment elevation was more frequent in the non-diabetic group (19.4% vs. 26%).
Regarding the pre-intervention cardiovascular medication, diabetics more frequently used acetylsalicylic acid (51.1% vs. 41.8%; P < 0.01), clopidogrel (30.2% vs. 24.6%; P < 0.01), statins (38.4% vs. 29.4%; P < 0.01), and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (32.6% vs. 25%; P < 0.01). The use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during the procedure did not differ between groups.
Table 2 shows the angiographic characteristics. There was a predominance of multivessel disease, with lesions in two or three vessels in diabetics (31.2% vs. 28% and 19% vs. 10.4%, respectively; P < 0.01). The left anterior descending artery was the most frequently approached vessel in both groups (39.1% vs. 34%; P < 0.01). The interventions were mostly performed in B2/C lesions (53.9% vs. 56.9%; P = 0.08), and most of the characteristics of lesion complexity did not differ between the groups. However, the presence of thrombi in the treated lesion (7.8% vs. 11%; P < 0.01) and the TIMI flow 0/1in the vessel to be treated (14.7% vs. 19.6%; P < 0.01) was lower in the diabetic group.
The diabetic group showed a higher number of treated vessels and greater use of drug-eluting stents (26.9% vs. 15%; P < 0.01) (Table 3). The angiographic quantification of obstructions before the procedure showed a higher percentage of luminal obstruction by plaque among non-diabetics (82.8 ± 12.6 mm vs. 84.4 ± 12.8 mm; P < 0.01), with no differences between the groups regarding the quantification of obstruction after the procedure. The stents implanted in the diabetic group had a smaller diameter (2.9 ± 0.5 mm vs. 3 ± 0.5 mm; P < 0.01), with no difference regarding length compared with non-diabetics (18.2± 6.9 mm vs. 18.5 ± 6.8 mm; P = 0.23). A high rate (95.5%) of procedural success was achieved in both groups.
The in-hospital outcomes (Table 4) of PCI showed no differences between the groups in the incidence of MACCE (3.3% vs. 2.8%; P = 0.79) or occurrence of in-hospital death (1% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.90), AMI (2% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.35), stroke (0.1% in both groups), and new emergency intervention (PCI or CABG) (0.3% in both groups).
Age, hypertension, previous stroke, use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, acute coronary syndrome, extension of the obstructive coronary disease, lesions with thrombus, pre-intervention TIMI flow, number of treated vessels, and long lesions and type B2/C lesions had a significant association with the occurrence of events in the univariate analysis; only hypertension [odds ratio (OR): 2.68, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.13-6.38; P = 0.026)] was the variable that best explained the presence of MACCE in the studied population.
The presence of diabetes mellitus in patients with atherosclerotic disease is a marker of poor prognosis when they are submitted to PCI, with a higher incidence of complications and restenosis.8-10 It is believed that this is due to endothelial and metabolic alterations, which lead to a greater chance of atherosclerotic plaque rupture and thrombus formation and increased exacerbation of intimal hyperplasia.10-12 In the present study, the impact of diabetes mellitus on in-hospital outcomes was evaluated in a large cohort of patients currently undergoing PCI.
According to the clinical characteristics of patients, most cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities were more common in diabetics, which would indicate a poor clinical outcome in this group.8-12 However, the present findings demonstrated no influence of diabetes on clinically adverse events at the hospitalisation phase, despite the greater clinical complexity of patients. The angiographic profile of diabetic patients, however, showed no difference for most analysed variables compared with non-diabetics, which suggests that the appropriate choice of cases attenuated the higher number of in-hospital events expected for that group.
The present findings are consistent with previous studies, such as that by Stein et al.,13 in which elective angioplasties of 1,133 diabetics and 9,300 non-diabetic patients between 1980 and 1990 were analysed. Similarly, the authors observed that diabetics were older, were more often females, and had a history of previous AMI, arterial hypertension, and multivessel involvement. In this study, there was no difference regarding the in-hospital clinical outcomes between diabetics and non-diabetics.
In a recent study, Li et al.14 evaluated 1,294 patients and found a higher incidence of acute/subacute in-stent thrombosis in the diabetic group. However, as in the present study, the presence of diabetes mellitus was not an independent predictor of cardiovascular events during hospitalisation.
In contrast, according to the database of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), which covered procedures performed from 2004 to 2007, the rate of overall in-hospital mortality was 1.27%, and the presence of diabetes mellitus was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality after PCI.15-17
The observation of a poorer prognosis in diabetic patients is more consistent in the late outcome after PCI, which may be explained by higher rates of restenosis and disease progression in this group of patients.1,8-10 In Brazil, the Drug-Eluting Stent in the Real World (DESIRE registry),18 which assessed the predictors of target lesion revascularisation in a long-term clinical follow-up, demonstrated that diabetes mellitus predisposes individuals to a greater need for new procedures. A subanalysis of the same registry, which evaluated the late outcome after PCI with drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients, showed that, when analysed in combination, major cardiac events occurred more frequently in the diabetic group, although still at very low rates.19
Data from the BARI Registry, the Duke International Registry, and the Northern New England Study Group suggest that careful selection of diabetic patients for PCI can minimise the differences in results in relation to the modality of surgical myocardial revascularisation, and the use of drug-eluting stents is thus imperative in this population.9,20 The study by Tanajura et al.,4 which assessed the influence of using drug-eluting stents in the selection of diabetic patients treated with PCI, observed a change in the profile of these patients, demonstrating that the increased availability of drug-eluting stents expands the indications for more complex cases and allows for a more complete myocardial revascularisation. In the present analysis, diabetic patients received more drug-eluting stents than non-diabetics in percentage terms, but this rate was not higher because the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS) does not provide this technology to its users.
Limitations of this study include the retrospective analysis of data, its performance in a single centre, and the absence of late follow-up.
Diabetes mellitus adds more clinical complexity to patients treated by PCI, but does not modify in-hospital clinical outcomes.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
1. Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes. Diretrizes SBD 2009 [Internet]. São Paulo; 2009 [citado 2012 maio 15]. Disponível em: http://www.diabetes.org.br/attachments/diretrizes09_final.pdf [ Links ]
2. Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabologia; Conselho Federal de Medicina. Projetos e Diretrizes. Diabetes mellitus: prevenção e tratamento da retinopatia [Internet]. São Paulo: AMB/CFM; 2006 [citado 2012 mar. 12]. Disponível em: http://www.projetodiretrizes.org.br/4_volume/10-Diabetesp.pdf [ Links ]
3. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011;124(23):2574-609. [ Links ]
4. Tanajura LF, Feres F, Siqueira DA, Abizaid A, Fraulob SM, Fucci A, et al. Influência dos stents farmacológicos na seleção de pacientes diabéticos tratados por meio de intervenção coronária percutânea. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2010;18(2):151-6. [ Links ]
5. Smith SC Jr, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW Jr, Jacobs AK, Kern MJ, King SB 3rd, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Circulation. 2006;113(7):e166-286. [ Links ]
6. TIMI Study Group. The Thrombolysis in myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial. Phase I findings. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(14):932-6. [ Links ]
7. Mattos LA, Lemos Neto PA, Rassi A Jr, Marin-Neto JA, Sousa AGMR, Devito FS, et al. Diretrizes da Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia – Intervenção Coronária Percutânea e Métodos Adjuntos Diagnósticos em Cardiologia Intervencionista (II Edição – 2008). Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2008;16 Supl 2:9-88. [ Links ]
8. Khan MB, Cubbon RM, Mercer B, Wheatcroft ACG, Gherardi G, Aziz A, et al. Association of diabetes with increased all-cause mortality following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the contemporary era. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2012;9(1):3-9. [ Links ]
9. Mathew V, Gersh BJ, Willians BA, Laskey WK, Willerson JT, Tilbury RT, et al. Outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the current era: a report from the Prevention of REStenosis with Tranilast and its Outcomes (PRESTO) trial. Circulation. 2004;109(4): 476-80. [ Links ]
10. Bayerl DM, Siqueira E, Moscoso I, Santos E, Maeda A, Bittencourt O, et al. Coronary stent implantation in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients: early and lates outcomes. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2000;75(5):365-8. [ Links ]
11. Weintraub WS, Kosinski AS, Brown CL 3rd, King SB 3rd. Can restenosis after coronary angioplasty be predicted from clinical variables? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;21(1):6-14. [ Links ]
12. Abizaid A, Kornowski R, Mintz G, Hong MK, Abizaid AS, Mehran R, et al. The influence of diabetes mellitus on acute and late outcomes following coronary stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32(3):584-9. [ Links ]
13. Stein B, Weintraub WS, Gebhart SSP, Cohen-Bernstein CL, Grosswald R, Liberman HA, et al. Influence of diabetes mellitus on early and late outcome after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1995;91(4):979-89. [ Links ]
14. Li CJ, Gao RL, Chen JL, Yang YJ, Qin XW, Xu B, et al. The influence of diabetes mellitus on the procedural and in-hospital outcomes after selective percutaneous coronary intervention. Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. 2005;33(3):216-20. [ Links ]
15. Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, DiSciascio G, Deligonul U, Topol EJ, et al. Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease: implications for patient selection. Multivessel Angioplasty Prognosis Study Group. Circulation. 1990; 82(4):1193-202. [ Links ]
16. Singh M, Lennon RJ, Holmes DR Jr, Bell MR, Rihal CS. Correlates of procedural complications and a simple integer risk score for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40(3):387-93. [ Links ]
17. Peterson ED, Dai D, De Long ER, Brennan JM, Singh M, Rao SV, et al. Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(18):1923-32. [ Links ]
18. Cavalcante LP, Sousa AGMR, Costa RA, Moreira A, Costa Jr JR, Maldonado G, et al. Incidência e preditores de revascularização da lesão-alvo no seguimento clínico de longo prazo: análise crítica do Registro DESIRE. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2010;18(2):157-64. [ Links ]
19. Moreira A, Sousa AGMR, Costa Jr JR, Costa RA, Maldonado GA, Cano MN, et al. Evolução tardia após intervenção coronária percutânea com stents farmacológicos em pacientes diabéticos do Registro DESIRE. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2008; 16(2):185-92. [ Links ]
20. Laskey W, Selzer F, Vlachos H, Johnston J, Jacobs A, King SB 3rd, et al. Comparison of in-hospital and one-year outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous catheter intervention (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;90(10):1062-7. [ Links ]
Correspondence to: Received on: 4/1/2012
Leonardo dos Santos Coelho
Rua Galvão Bueno, 257 - Liberdade
São Paulo, SP, Brasil - CEP 01516-000
Accepted on: 6/4/2012
Received on: 4/1/2012