Microvascular Complications and Outcome after Drug-eluting Stent Implantation in Diabetic Patients

Microvascular Complications and Outcome after Drug-eluting Stent Implantation in Diabetic Patients

Briguori Carlo, Colombo Antonio
European Cardiovascular Disease 2007
Published: June 2007
download article
dots

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus represent 25% of those requiring myocardial revascularisation.1 Although current guidelines favour coronary bypass surgery (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in most diabetics who require revascularisation,2-3 substantial variability exists in practice patterns between individual hospitals, suggesting a lack of clinical consensus.4 The major advantage of CABG over bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation is the lower risk of repeat revascularisation procedures through the follow-up.5-7 This advantage may be eliminated by drugeluting stents (DES).8-12 It is unknown, however, whether this translates into better long-term clinical outcome. Indeed, concerns have been raised from a recent meta-analysis of 1,748 patients enrolled in four randomised trials evaluating the safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) compared with BMS.13 In the 428 patients with diabetes, a significant difference in the four-year survival rate was observed in favour of the BMS over the SES group (95.6% versus 87.8%; hazard ratio (HR) for death in the SES group, 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.38-6.10; p=0.008). The lower survival rate among patients with diabetes who were treated with SES was due to increased numbers of deaths from both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes. No difference in survival rate was detected among the patients without diabetes. Among the patients with diabetes, there was a small excess of very late stent thrombosis (occurring more than one year after the procedure). Although the number of fatal events in patients with diabetes was small, and a lower than expected mortality was noted among the patients with diabetes in the BMS group, these data warrant additional studies.

It is common experience in clinical practice that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus encompass a heterogeneous population with different severity of cardiovascular disease and therefore different outcome. Insulin treatment has largely been used as an index of higher risk. However, this approach seems to be quite simplistic. It is time for more accurate criteria for risk-stratification in diabetic patients. In this context, microvascular complications may represent a useful index to differentiate high- versus low-risk patients.

Microvascular complications have been identified as risk markers for cardiovascular death in diabetic subjects.14-16 Several mechanisms (such as chronically elevated plasma glucose levels, vascular endothelium abnormalities and insulin resistance) have been proposed as explanations for the development and progression of microvascular complications.17-19 The causes of generalised endothelial dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus are unknown, although there are many possible candidates, such as increased protein kinase C activity, non-enzymatic glycation and oxidative stress, alterations in redox potential and increased expression of transforming growth factor (and/or tumour necrosis factor).17-19 Furthermore, variability among individuals in terms of endothelial vulnerability to injury (potentially due to genetic factors) might account for the observation that only a subset of patients appears susceptible to the development of microangiopathy. The coincidence of albuminuria, retinopathy and cardiovascular disease has been explained by the Steno hypothesis,19 according to which albuminuria, retinopathy and cardiovascular disease reflect generalised vascular leakage caused by genetically determined alterations in the basement membrane metabolism associated with hyperglycaemia. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a frequent and early sign of microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus, and remains a leading cause of blindness in Japan, Europe and North America.20 The balance of evidence suggests that there is a graded relation between severity of DR and risk of all-cause mortality in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Whether this is simply because DR is a reflection of poor diabetic status or whether its presence constitutes a separate and additive adverse influence on mortality and the incidence of heart disease remains uncertain. Moreover, after adjustment for potential confounders, proliferative DR and progression to proliferative DR remain associated with increased all-cause mortality and incidence of coronary heart disease.21-22 An increased spontaneous and induced platelet aggregation, with enhanced thromboxane A2 production and expression of more glycoprotien IIb/IIIa receptors, has been demonstrated in diabetic patients. Moreover, greater coagulation activity co-exists with increased procoagulant factors (fibrinogen, factor VII and von Willebrand factor) and fibrinolytic system impairment, with reduced synthesis of prostacyclin and increased plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1).23 Whether these abnormalities are more pronounced in diabetics with microvascular complications has not been investigated.

12next ›last »
References:
  1. Smith Jr SC, Faxon D, Cascio W, et al., Prevention conference VI: diabetes and cardiovascular disease: writing group VI: revascularization in diabetic patients, Circulation, 2002;105: e165–9.
  2. Smith Jr SC, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld Jr JW, et al., American College of Cardiology/Americab Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Circulation, 2006;113:e166–286.
  3. Eagle KA, Guyton RA, ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery), Circulation, 2004;110:e340–e437.
  4. McGuire DK, Anstrom KJ, Peterson ED, Influence of bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation national heart, lung, and blood institute diabetic clinical alert on practice patterns. Result from the National Cardiovascular Network Database, Circulation, 2003;107:1864–70.
  5. Flaherty JD, Davidson CJ, Diabetes and coronary revascularization, JAMA, 2005;293:1501–8.
  6. Abizaid A, Costa MA, Centemero M, et al., Clinical and economic impact of diabetes mellitus on percutaneous and surgical treatment of multivessel coronary disease patients. Insights from the Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study (ARTS) Trial, Circulation, 2001;104:533–8.
  7. SOS Investigators, Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 2002;360: 965–70.
  8. Abizaid A, Costa MA, Blanchard D, et al., Sirolimus-eluting stents inhibit neointimal hyperplasia in diabetic patients. stents inhibit neointimal hyperplasia in diabetic patients. Insights from the RAVEL Trial, Eur Heart J, 2004;25:107–112.
  9. Moussa I, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al., Impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcome in diabetic patients. A SIRIUS (SIRolImUScoated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) Substudy, Circulation, 2004;109:2273–8.
  10. Hermiller JB, Raizner A, Cannon L, et al., Outcomes with the polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent in patients with diabetes mellitus: the TAXUS-IV trial, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005;45:1172–9.
  11. Dibra A, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, et al., Paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents to prevent restenosis in diabetic patients, N Engl Med J, 2005;353:663–70.
  12. Sabatè M, Jimenez-Quevedo P, Angiolillo, DJ, et al., Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Standard Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Diabetic Patients: The Diabetes and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent (DIABETES) Trial, Circulation, 2005;112:217–83.
  13. Spaulding C, Daemen J, Boersma E, et al., A pooled analysis of data comparing sirolumus-eluting stens with bare-metal stents, N Engl J Med, 2007;356:989–97.
  14. Mogensen CE, Microalbuminuria predicts clinical proteinuria and early mortality in maturity-onset diabetes, N Engl J Med, 1984;310:356–60.
  15. Mattock MB, Morrish NJ, Viberti G, et al., Prospective study of microalbuminuria as predictor of mortality in NIDDM, Diabetes, 1992;41:736–41.
  16. Rajala U, Pajunpaa H, Koskela P, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi H, High cardiovascular disease mortality in subjects with visual impairment caused by diabetic retinopathy, Diabetes Care, 2000;23:957–61.
  17. Kador PF, The role of aldose reductase in the development of diabetic complications, Med Res Rev, 1988;8:325–52.
  18. Brownlee M, Glycation and diabetic complications, Diabetes, 1994;43:836–41.
  19. Stehouwer CDA, Lambert J, Donker AJM, van Hinsbergh VWM, Endothelial dysfunction and pathogenesis of diabetic angiopathy, Cardiovasc Res, 1997;34:55–68.
  20. Kahn HA, Hiller R, Blindness caused by diabetic retinopathy, Am J Ophthalmol, 1974;78:58–67.
  21. Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, Cruickshanks KJ, Association of ocular disease and mortality in a diabetic population, Arch Ophthalmol, 1999;117:1487–95.
  22. Cusik M, Meleth AD, Argön E, et al., The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Research Group. Associations of mortality and diabetes complications in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. ETDRS report no. 27, Diabetes Care, 2005;28:617–25.
  23. Davi G, Catalano I, Averna M, et al., Thromboxane biosynthesis and platelet function in type II diabetes mellitus, N Engl J Med, 1990;322:1769–74.
  24. Marso SP, Ellis SG, Tuzcu M, et al., The importance of proteinuria as a determinant of mortality following percutaneous coronary revascularization in diabetics, J Am Coll Cardiol, 1999; 33:1269–77.
  25. Briguori C, Condorelli G, Airoldi F, et al., Impact of microvascular complications on outcome after coronary stent implantation in patients with diabetes, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005;45:464–6.
  26. Ono T, Kobayashi J, Sasako Y, et al., The impact of diabetic retinopathy on long-term outcome following coronary artery bypass graft surgery, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2002;40:428–36.
  27. Ono T, Ohashi T, Asakura T, et al., The impact of diabetic retinopathy on cardiac outcome following coronary-arterybypass graft surgery: a prospective observational study, Ann Thorac Surg, 2006;81:608–12.
  28. Briguori C, Condorelli G, Airoldi F, et al., Comparison of coronary drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus, Am J Cardiol, 2007;99:779–84.
  29. Kim YH, Hong MK, Song JM, et al., Diabetic retinopathy as a predictor of late clinical events following percutaneous coronary intervention, J Invasive Cardiol, 2002;10:599–602.
  30. Briguori C, Airoldi F, Aranzulla T, et al., Microvascular Complications And Outcome After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation In Diabetic Patients, World Congress of Cardiology, P668; Barcelona, 1–6 August 2006.
  31. Sianos G, Morel M, Kappetein AP, et al., The SYNTAX score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease, EuroInterv, 2005;2:219–27.

add new comment Comments


Have something to say? Post a comment on this article!