RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Graft In- hospital Outcomes in Diabetes
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.03.29.23287929
DO 10.1101/2023.03.29.23287929
A1 Luo, Qianyun
A1 Li, Renxi
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/31/2023.03.29.23287929.abstract
AB Background Despite extensive research on coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcome differences, current literature lacks representation of short-term in-hospital outcomes in patients with existing medical conditions. This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of these two revascularization procedures in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients.Methods The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to extract patients who received CABG or PCI surgery between the last quarter of 2015 to 2020 based on ICD10-PCS. Patients of age<40 were excluded for congenital heart defects. Preoperative differences were noted and adjusted using multivariable logistic regression. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated between PCI and CAGB groups.Results A total number of 90,662 CABG and 173,725 PCI cases of patients with DM were identified in NIS. Compared to CABG, patients who underwent PCI had increased mortality (2.75% vs 2.00%, aOR 1.266, p<0.0001), myocardial infarction (1.5% vs 1.17%, aOR 1.223, p<0.0001), and were less likely to experience respiratory events (0.38% vs 6.33%, aOR 0.055, p<0.0001), stroke (0.03% vs 0.06%, aOR 0.385, p<0.0001), acute kidney injury (20.37% vs 25.37%, aOR 0.727, p<0.0001), sepsis (0.01% vs 0.05%, aOR 0.172, p<0.0001), shock (0.11% vs 0.74%, aOR 0.139, p<0.0001).Conclusions The NIS database collects enormous records from nationwide providers, offering great statistical power. PCI was associated with a markedly higher in-hospital mortality rate but a lower morbidity rate in patients with DM as compared to CABG. Therefore, physicians should weigh both mortality and morbidity when considering surgical treatment to DM patients.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study used only openly available human data from The National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) that were originally located at https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/databases.jspI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors