OBJECTIVES
We sought to compare the efficacy of primary angioplasty in diabetics versus nondiabetics and to evaluate the relative benefits of angioplasty over thrombolytic therapy among diabetics.
BACKGROUND
Primary angioplasty for myocardial infarction is at least as effective as thrombolytic therapy in the general population. However, the influence of diabetic status on outcome after primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis remains unknown.
METHODS
Patients in the Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO-IIb) Angioplasty Substudy were randomized to receive either primary angioplasty or accelerated alteplase. The interaction of diabetic status (diabetics n = 177, nondiabetics n = 961) and treatment strategy with the occurrence of the primary end point (death, nonfatal reinfarction or nonfatal, disabling stroke at 30 days) was analyzed (power to detect a 40% relative reduction in the primary end point with alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20). Among patients who were randomized to and underwent primary angioplasty, procedural success (defined as residual stenosis <50% and TIMI grade 3 flow) was assessed based on diabetic status.
RESULTS
Compared with nondiabetics, diabetics had worse baseline clinical and angiographic profiles. Despite more severe stenosis and poorer flow in the culprit artery, procedural success with angioplasty was similar for diabetics (n = 81; 70.4%) and nondiabetics (n = 391; 72.4%). Outcome at 30 days was better for nondiabetics randomized to angioplasty versus alteplase (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.41–0.96) with a similar trend for diabetics (0.70, [0.29–1.72]). We noted no interaction between diabetic status and treatment strategy on outcome (p = 0.88).
CONCLUSIONS
Primary angioplasty was similarly successful in diabetics and nondiabetics and appeared to be more effective than thrombolytic therapy among diabetics with acute infarction.
