Key result
Preventive PCI reduced the 2-year primary composite endpoint compared to medical therapy alone in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients.
Why the study?
The efficacy and safety of preventive PCI for treating vulnerable plaques in diabetic patients remained unclear.
Does preventive PCI plus optimal medical therapy reduce adverse cardiac events in patients with non-flow-limiting vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques, regardless of diabetes status?
RCT (n=1,606)
stratified by diabetes status
Does preventive PCI plus optimal medical therapy reduce adverse cardiac events in patients with non-flow-limiting vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques, regardless of diabetes status?
Preventive PCI for non-flow-limiting vulnerable coronary plaques significantly reduces adverse clinical events at 2 years compared to medical therapy alone, with consistent benefits in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Preventive PCI cuts 2-year events in non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques regardless of diabetes; extends benefit to diabetics without interaction.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy and safety of preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treating vulnerable plaques in diabetic patients remain unclear. METHODS: The PREVENT (Preventive Coronary Intervention on Stenosis with Functionally Insignificant Vulnerable Plaque) trial was a randomized clinical trial that compared preventive PCI plus optimal medical therapy with optimal medical therapy alone in patients with non-flow-limiting (fractional flow reserve >0.80) vulnerable plaques identified via intracoronary imaging. Randomization was stratified by diabetes status. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalization for unstable or progressive angina at 2 years. RESULTS: Among 1606 randomized patients, 490 (30.5%) had diabetes. Diabetic patients underwent PCI for non-target lesions before randomization more frequently than non-diabetics (40.6% vs. 33.8%, P = .009). There were no significant differences in the incidence of the primary endpoint between diabetic and non-diabetic patients [1.8% vs. 1.9%; hazard ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval 0.45-2.14); P = .956]. However, the primary endpoint at 2 years was less frequent with preventive PCI compared with optimal medical therapy alone in both diabetic (0% vs. 3.7%; P = .004) and non-diabetic patients (0.5% vs. 3.2%; hazard ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.05-0.55; P = .004), without a significant interaction between diabetic status and randomized strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of adverse clinical events was similar between diabetic and non-diabetic patients with non-flow-limiting vulnerable coronary plaques. However, preventive PCI was associated with a lower incidence of the primary endpoint at 2 years, regardless of diabetes status.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in non-flow-limiting vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques (n=1,606). Preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical therapy vs. Optimal medical therapy alone was evaluated on Composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalization for unstable or progressive angina at 2 years (p=0.004). Preventive PCI reduced the 2-year primary composite endpoint compared to medical therapy alone in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: