Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the outcomes of diabetic patients hospitalized with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina (UA) referred for revascularization by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a real-life setting. METHODS: The study included 1987 patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled from the biennial Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey between 2000 and 2016, who were hospitalized for NSTEMI or UA, and underwent either PCI (N = 1652, 83%) or CABG (N = 335, 17%). Propensity score-matching analysis compared all-cause mortality in 200 pairs (1:1) who underwent revascularization by either PCI or CABG. RESULTS: Independent predictors for CABG referral included 3-vessel coronary artery disease (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.6-6.8, p < 0.001), absence of on-site cardiac surgery (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, p = 0.013), no previous PCI (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.024) or MI (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p = 0.002). While at 2 years of follow-up, survival analysis revealed no differences in mortality risk between the surgical and percutaneous revascularization groups (log-rank p = 0.996), after 2 years CABG was associated with a significant survival benefit (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07-2.21; p = 0.021). Comparison of the propensity score matching pairs also revealed a consistent long-term advantage toward CABG (log-rank p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-life setting, revascularization by CABG of diabetic patients hospitalized with NSTEMI/UA is associated with better long-term outcomes. Prospective randomized studies are warranted in order to provide more effective recommendations in future guidelines.