药物洗脱支架置入与冠状动脉搭桥治疗糖尿病患者冠状动脉多支病变近中期疗效的比较

目的:比较雷帕霉素洗脱支架(DES)置入术与冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)治疗糖尿病并发冠状动脉多支病变患者的近中期疗效.方法:回顾性分析2003-07-01-2004-06-30入院并接受DES置入或CABG治疗的糖尿病患者490例的基础临床资料、院内及院外随访资料,比较不同冠状动脉血运重建方式对糖尿病多支病变患者临床结果的影响.结果:250例患者接受DES置入(DES组),240例患者选择CABG治疗(CABG组).与DES组相比,CABG组患者的冠状动脉病变更为复杂,左主干病变以及慢性闭塞病变的比例较高;DES组弥漫长病变以及再狭窄病变的比例较高.CABG组与DES组院内不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)发生率差异无统计学意义(3.3%:1.2%,P＞0.05).共有440例患者接受了不同形式的随访,随访率为89.7%.2组患者随访病死率、非致死性脑卒中以及非致死性心肌梗死的发生率均差异无统计学意义; 但DES组患者需要再次血运重建的比例明显高于CABG组(11.3%:1.9%,P<0.01);DES组患者随访MACCE发生率高于CABG组(17.4%:8.6%,P<0.01).再次血运重建比例较高是导致DES组随访不良事件增加的主要原因.结论:糖尿病多支病变患者CABG后近中期MACCE发生率低于DES置入术.     

药物洗脱支架置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗糖尿病合并多支病变的近中期疗效分析

目的比较药物洗脱支架(DES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗糖尿病合并多支病变患者住院时和12个月的临床效果。方法入选2003年7月至2005年12月北京安贞医院645例糖尿病合并多支病变进行血运重建的患者,比较CABG和置入DES组全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死(M I)、脑血管事件、再次血运重建以及总的心脑血管不良事件(MACCE)发生率。结果 CABG组更多合并有左主干病变、慢性闭塞病变、C型病变和3支病变,完全血运重建较高(P均<0.001);DES组和CABG组总死亡率(P=0.460)、心脏性死亡和非致死性M I复合终点事件(P=0.076)的发生率差异无统计学意义;DES组MACCE、再次血运重建发生率明显增高(P均<0.001)。结论糖尿病合并多支病变患者12个月时CABG有较低MACCE,与再次血运重建发生率较低有关;DES有较高的再次血运重建发生率,与糖尿病较高的再狭窄率和PC I较低的完全血运重建率有关。     

药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干病变的临床疗效对比

目的:评估药物洗脱支架(DES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗无保护左主干病变的临床疗效。方法:分析2003-10-2010-09期间行血运重建的282例无保护左主干患者的临床资料,其中接受DES者143例(DES组),接受CABG者139例(CABG组),比较2组住院期和随访期心脑血管不良事件(死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、脑卒中和再次血运重建,即MACCE)的发生情况。结果:DES组手术成功率为100%,住院期间1例发生非致死性心肌梗死,无一例死亡、脑血管意外或需再次血运重建;CABG组手术成功率为95.7%,住院期间有1例发生非致死性急性心肌梗死,无一例需再次血运重建,共有6例死亡;CABG组住院期死亡率明显高于DES组(4.3%∶0,P<0.05),住院期CABG组总MACCE发生率也明显高于DES组(5.0%∶0.7%,P<0.05);随访期平均(17±8)个月,DES组临床心绞痛复发率和再次血运重建率较CABG组有增高趋势(7.8%∶2.7%,7.0%∶1.8%),但差异无统计学意义,其总MACCE发生率显著高于CABG组(14.8%∶7.1%,P<0.05);剔除新发病变及病变进展病例后,2组总MACCE发生率(7.8%∶7.1%)差异无统计学意义。结论:DES治疗无保护左主干病变安全和有效,可以作为CABG的一种替代治疗手段。     

冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者冠状动脉多支病变PCI与CABG术后5年随访

目的比较冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(冠心病)合并2型糖尿病冠状动脉多支病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)置入药物涂层支架(DES)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后远期疗效。方法连续入选2002年12月至2008年12月住院期间的冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者,并成功行择期血运重建的多支冠状动脉病变患者,分为CABG组(n=270),DES组(n=285)。随访5年,从术后30 d开始到5年止结束,随访包括全因死亡、心源性死亡、非致死性卒中、非致死性心肌梗死、心绞痛复发和再次血运重建的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACE)。结果入选患者随访率100%。CABG组与DES组两组间5年全因死亡率(1.11%vs.1.40%)、心源性死亡率(0%vs.0%)、非致死性卒中发生率(2.22%vs.2.81%)无统计学差异(P0.05)。DES组非致死性心肌梗死发生率(3.15%)、心绞痛复发率(17.89%)、再次血运重建率(12.28%)均高于CABG组(分别为1.11,5.56%,0.74%),差异均有统计学意义(P0.05~0.01)。结论多支冠状动脉病变合并2型糖尿病患者CABG与PCI治疗5年生存率无明显差异,但多支冠状动脉病变合并2型糖尿病患者DES支架置入远期心绞痛复发率、再次血运重建率,非致死性心肌梗死发生率高于CABG组。     

冠状动脉多支血管病变伴慢性肾功能不全患者血管重建策略与预后的关系

目的对比多支血管病变伴慢性肾脏疾病（CKD）患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）和冠状动脉旁路移植术（CABG）的2年临床预后。方法根据改良MDRD公式对北京安贞医院2004年到2006年因多支冠状动脉病变接受药物洗脱支架（DES）或CABG的患者的肾小球滤过率（GFR）进行计算,GFR＆lt;60mL/min诊断为CKD。共入选CKD患者1069例,其中724例接受DES,345例接受CABG。首要终点为2年内死亡、心肌梗死（MI）以及脑血管事件（CVE）的复合终点,次级终点为再次血管重建。结果在2年随访中,CABG组首要终点的发生率为9.9%,DES组为11.3%（P=0.528）。两组之间死亡率差异也无统计学意义（CABG组与DES组分别为3.5%比4.7%,P=0.422）。而DES组2年再次血管重建的比例显著高于CABG组（9.0%比4.1%,P=0.004）。Cox多因素回归分析表明,年龄、糖尿病、左心室功能不全（LVEF＆lt;30%）和急性冠状动脉综合征是复合终点发生的独立预测因素。结论在冠状动脉多支病变伴CKD患者中,CABG和DES两种血管重建策略显示出相同的死亡率和MI、CVE发生率。但DES组患者再次血管重建的发生率依然高于CABC组患者。     

药物洗脱支架置入术与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗冠心病多支病变的临床对比研究

目的:探讨药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗冠心病多支冠状动脉(冠脉)病变患者的临床疗效,并与冠脉旁路移植术进行比较.方法:入选2005-01-2008-01在我院行血管重建术的215例冠心病多支冠脉病变患者,其中114例行DES置入术(DES组),101例行冠脉旁路移植术 (CABG组).比较2组住院期和随访期不良心血管事件(死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、再次血管重建术和脑血管意外)的发生情况.结果:2组的临床和冠脉病变特征相似, 与DES组比较,CABG组左主干病变(29.2%∶5.0%,P<0.01)、LVEF<50%发生率(39.7%∶19.2%,P<0.01) 和完全血管重建率(81.2%∶58.8%, P<0.01)较高.住院期2组总体不良心血管事件发生率无明显差异,但CABG组住院期病死率有增高趋势(6.9%∶1.8%,P＞0.05).平均临床随访12～36(17±9)个月,2组总体不良心血管事件发生率仍无明显差异(9.6% ∶13.4%,P＞0.05) ,但DES组再次血管重建的发生率较CABG组有增高趋势(9.8%∶2.1%,P＞0.05).结论:DES置入术应用在冠心病多支冠脉病变患者中安全可行,总体不良心血管事件发生率与CABG无明显差异.     

对比两种完全血运重建对冠状动脉多支血管病变伴慢性肾脏疾病患者临床预后的影响

目的:对比药物洗脱支架(DES)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)两种完全血运重建方式对冠状动脉多支病变伴慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)患者临床预后的影响.方法:根据改良MDRD公式,对因冠状动脉多支病变接受DES和CABG的患者的肾功能进行评估,筛选出824例CKD患者接受了完全血运重建治疗,其中冠状动脉双支病变409例(DES 312例,CABG 97例),冠状动脉三支病变415例(DES 167例,CABG 248例).为校正基线资料的差异,对冠状动脉双支病变和三支病变置入DES和接受了CABG的临床预后进行分别对比.首要终点为2年内全因死亡、心肌梗死以及脑血管事件的复合终点事件,次级终点为2年内再次血运重建.结果:在冠状动脉双支病变患者中,DES患者复合终点事件及再次血运重建的发生率均与CABG患者相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).在三支病变患者中,DES患者复合终点的发生率与CABG患者相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).而DES患者再次血运重建的发生率显著高于CABG患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).Kaplan-Meier生存曲线分析:在冠状动脉三支病变患者中,DES患者2年内无复合终点事件的生存率与CABG患者相比,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);而再次血运重建生存率在DES患者明显低于CABG患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).Cox多因素分析表明,冠状动脉三支病变人群中DES患者再次血运重建的风险显著高于CABG患者(风险比:2.32,95%可信区间:1.57～7.33,P=0.024).结论:在冠状动脉多支病变伴CKD患者中,CABG和DES两种血运重建策略显示出相同的无复合终点生存率.但在冠状动脉三支病变患者中,即使在同样接受完全血运重建治疗后,DES再次血运重建的风险依然高于CABG.     

老年多支血管病变患者置入药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术后近远期临床结果

目的:本研究旨在比较老年(年龄≥75岁)稳定性冠心病合并多支血管病变患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)置入药物洗脱支架(DES)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的近远期临床结果。方法:本研究于2003年7月至2006年12月,连续入选年龄≥75岁稳定性冠心病合并多支血管病变患者363例,在我院行PCI置入DES(n=269)或CABG(n=94)治疗。主要终点为24个月时主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE),次要终点为24个月时全因死亡及非致死性心肌梗死(MI)、脑血管事件和再次血运重建以及全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件。结果:住院期间,CABG组的病死率(7.4%vs.1.9%,P=0.023)和非致死性MI的发生率(3.2%vs.0,P=0.023),明显高于DES组,CABG组的MACCE的发生率也明显高于DES组(10.6%vs.1.9%,P=0.001)。多因素回归分析结果显示:24个月时,CABG组和DES组的主要终点事件的风险未见明显差异[22.3%vs.15.2%,风险比(HR)=1.62,95%CI 0.63～3.31,P=0.379],两组的全因死亡、心源性死亡、非致死性MI、脑血管事件和再次血运重建的风险也没有明显差异;CABG组全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件的风险明显高于DES组(19.1%vs.8.2%,HR 3.87,95%CI:1.24～12.37,P=0.009)。结论:本研究提示,与DES相比,CABG可能会增加75岁以上多支血管病变患者的远期全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件的风险,而未降低再次血运重建和MACCE。     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉小血管病变的疗效分析

目的通过分析比较裸金属支架(BMS)与药物洗脱支架[DES,包括雷帕霉素(Cypher)支架和紫杉醇(TAXUS)支架]治疗冠状动脉小血管病变疗效的差异,为DES治疗多支及单支小血管病变冠心病提供依据。方法连续入选2002年12月至2005年5月沈阳军区总医院首次接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)、靶血管为小血管病变且达到完全血运重建的486例患者,其中多支小血管病变(多支)150例。分为BMS组214例(多支63例)、Cypher组140例(多支46例)和TAXUS组132例(多支41例),对比分析各组患者住院期间及随访6个月的临床情况。结果3组患者冠脉病变特点、PCI成功率及住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率等指标差异均无显著性(P>0·05)。冠脉造影随访显示,两个DES组再狭窄率均明显低于BMS(Cypher组4·9%,TAXUS组7·5%对BMS组29·2%,P<0·05),随访期间MACE发生率亦明显低于BMS(Cypher组2·9%,TAXUS组3·9%对BMS组12·0%,P<0·01)。进一步分析多支小血管病例,发现两个DES组的再狭窄率及随访期间MACE发生率仍然明显低于BMS组(再狭窄率Cypher组6·7%,TAXUS组7·1%对BMS组37·5%,P<0·05;MACE发生率Cypher组4·1%,TAXUS组4·8%对BMS组21·0%,P<0·05)。结论Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗小血管病变安全可行,疗效显著,治疗多支小血管病变可得到相同的疗效。     

老年无保护左主干病变置人药物洗脱支架与行冠状动脉旁路移植术的预后比较

目的 对比老年无保护左主干病变患者置入药物洗脱支架(DES)和行冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后2年的临床预后.方法 入选2004年1月至2006年6月因无保护左主干病变置入DES或行CABG的老年患者(≥70岁)共295例.随访2年,记录患者发生全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死及靶病变血管重建的情况.结果 共206例患者行CABG,89例患者置入DES.随访2年的累积死亡率CABG组为10.2%,DES组为13.3%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.428).生存分析表明2年生存率CABG组为89.2%,DES组为86.4%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.668).2年心肌梗死发生率CABG组为10.1%,DES组为7.8%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.501).DES组2年内靶病变血管重建的发生率明显高于CABG组(13.5%比4.9%,P=0.015).多因素分析表明,年龄(HR:1.04,95% CI:1.01～1.09,P=0.024)、左心室功能不全(LVEF<30%)(HR:4.97,95%CI:1.22～24.85,P=0.018)以及2型糖尿病(HR:2.22,95%CI:1.31～4.86,P=0.001)均是死亡的独立危险因素.结论 对于≥170岁的老无保护左主干病变患者,行CABG和置入DES后2年的生存率相当,但置入DES的患者靶病变血管重建发生率明显高于行CABG的患者.     

Five year clinical effect of coronary stenting and coronary artery bypass grafting in renal insufficient patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: insights from ARTS trial.

AIMS: To compare coronary stent implantation and bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease in patients with renal insufficiency. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ARTS trial, 142 moderate renal insufficient patients (Ccr<60 mL/min) with multivessel coronary disease were randomly assigned to stent implantation (n=69) or CABG (n=73). At 5 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mortality (14.5% in the stent group vs. 12.3% in the CABG group, P=0.81), or combined endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), or myocardial infarction (MI) (30.4% in the stent group vs. 23.3% in the CABG group, P=0.35). Among patients who survived without CVA or MI, 18.8% in the stent group underwent a second revascularization procedure when compared with 8.2% in the surgery group (P=0.08). The event-free survival at 5 years was 50.7% in the stent group and 68.5% in the surgery group (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: At 5 years, the differences in mortality and combined incidence of death, CVA, and MI between coronary stenting and surgery did not reach statistically significant level. However, the occurrence of MACCE in the stent group was higher than in the CABG group, mainly driven by the higher incidence of repeat revascularization in the stent group.     

Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial

OBJECTIVES: The long-term (five-year) comparative results of treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is at present unknown. BACKGROUND: The Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) was designed to compare CABG and stenting in patients with multivessel disease. METHODS: A total of 1,205 patients with the potential for equivalent revascularization were randomly assigned to CABG (n = 605) or stent implantation (n = 600). The primary clinical end point was freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at one year; MACCE at five-year follow-up constituted the final secondary end point. RESULTS: At five years, there were 48 and 46 deaths in the stent and CABG groups, respectively (8.0% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.83; relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.55). Among 208 diabetic patients, mortality was 13.4% in the stent group and 8.3% in the CABG group (p = 0.27; RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.71 to 3.63). Overall freedom from death, stroke, or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between groups (18.2% in the stent group vs. 14.9% in the surgical group; p = 0.14; RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.58). The incidence of repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the stent group (30.3%) than in the CABG group (8.8%; p < 0.001; RR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.61 to 4.60). The composite event-free survival rate was 58.3% in the stent group and 78.2% in the CABG group (p < 0.0001; RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.28). CONCLUSIONS: At five years there was no difference in mortality between stenting and surgery for multivessel disease. Furthermore, the incidence of stroke or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between the two groups. However, overall MACCE was higher in the stent group, driven by the increased need for repeat revascularization.     

Late loss of early benefit from drug-eluting stents when compared with bare-metal stents and coronary artery bypass surgery: 3 years follow-up of the ERACI III registry.

Aims: Long-term benefit from coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES) relative to bare metal stents (BMS) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has not been established. One year follow-up of the ERACI III registry study showed better outcome with DES. To compare major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates in patients with multivessel cardiovascular disease (CVD) who received DES with those patients treated with BMS or CABG in the ERACI II trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with multivessel CVD who met the ERACI II trial, clinical and angiographic inclusion criteria were treated with DES and enrolled in the ERACI III registry. The primary endpoint was 3-year MACCE. ERACI III-DES patients (n = 225) were compared with the BMS (n = 225) and CABG (n = 225) arms of ERACI II. Patients treated with DES were older, more often smokers, more often high risk by euroSCORE and less frequently had unstable angina. They also had higher incidence of type C lesions and received more stents than the BMS-treated cohort. Three year MACCE was lower in ERACI III-DES (22.7%) than in ERACI II-BMS (29.8%, P = 0.015), mainly reflecting less target vessel revascularization (14.2 vs. 24.4%, P = 0.009). MACCE rates at 3 years were similar in DES and CABG-treated patients (22.7%, P = 1.0), in contrast to results at 1 year (12 vs. 19.6%, P = 0.038). MACCE rates in ERACI III-DES were higher in diabetics (RR 0.81, 0.66-0.99; P = 0.018). Death or non-fatal MI at 3 years trended higher in the DES (10.2%) than BMS cohort (6.2%, P = 0.08) and lower than in CABG patients (15.1%, P = 0.07). Sub-acute late-stent thrombosis (LST) (>30 days) occurred in nine DES patients and no BMS patients (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In patients with multivessel CVD, the initial advantage for PCI with DES over CABG observed at 1 year was not apparent by 3 years. Furthermore, despite continued lower incidence of MACCE, initial advantage over BMS appeared to decrease with time. LST occurred more frequent in DES-treated patients.     

冠心病多支病变雷帕霉素洗脱支架置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术的疗效对比

目的:对比雷帕霉素洗脱支架(SES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABO)的近期与中期临床疗效.方法:单中心回顾性连续入选2003年7月～2004年6月期间行择期血运重建的多支冠状动脉病变患者,分为CAB(;组(811例),SES组(251例).随访终点事件包括死亡、心肌梗死、脑卒中和再次血运重建等主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE).采用Kaplan-Meier方法估计无事件生存率.采用Logistic多元回归方法调整分析治疗对终点事件的相对影响.结果:随访率90.3%.中位随访时间19个月.随访30 d,CABG组MACCE的发生率高于SES组(5.4%: 1.6%,OR 3.66,95%CI 1.26～10.61),CABG组的病死率高于SES组(4.6%:1.2%,OR4.02,95%CI 1.18～13.74).至随访结束,SES组累积病死率低于CAB(;组(3.1%:7.6%,OR 0.44,95%CI0.19～0.99),但再次血运重建率高于CABG组(8.4%:1.5%,OR 6.83,95%CI 3.07～15.19),MACCE 2组间差异无统计学意义.以30 d为分期分析,CABG组30d生存率低于SES组(95.4%;98.8%,P＜0.05),2组30d后生存率差异无统计学意义(97.2%:98.3%,P＞0.05).结论:多支冠状动脉病变CABG与SES置入比较,CABG的30 d病死率高于SES置入,30 d后病死率差异无统计学意义;多支冠状动脉SES置入的中期血运重建率高于CABG.     

冠心病多支病变支架植入与冠脉旁路移植术疗效的比较

目的：比较老年冠心病多支冠状动脉病变患者的雷帕霉素洗脱支架植入与冠状动脉旁路移植术近期与中期的疗效。方法：回顾性人选2001年12月至2005年12月，行择期血运重建的多支冠状动脉病变患者，分为冠状动脉旁路移植术组（CABG组，n=310），雷帕霉．素洗脱支架植入组（SES组，n=257）。随访包括死亡、心肌梗塞（MI）、卒中和再次血运重建的主要不良心脑血管事件（MACCE）。采用Kaplan-Meier方法估计无事件生存率。采用Logistic多元回归方法调整分析治疗对终点事件的相对影响。结果：随访率96．4％。中位随访时间24个月。随访30d，CABG组MACCE的发生率高于SES组（5．8％：1.5％，P〈0．05），CABG组的死亡率高于SES组（4．7％：1．4％，P〈0．05）。至随访结束，CABG组累积死亡率仍高于SES组（6．6％：2．9％，P〈0．05），但再次血运重建率低于SES组（1.6％：8．6％，P〈0．05），MACCE两组间无差异。结论：多支冠状动脉病变患者冠状动脉旁路移植术的死亡率高于雷帕霉素洗脱支架植入，中期血运重建率低于雷帕霉素洗脱支架植入。     

PCI versus CABG for multivessel coronary disease in diabetics

Objectives: To explore the clinical performance of a strategy of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with multivessel disease (MVD) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), when it is based on clinical judgment. Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for poor outcome after PCI. However, PCI may result in better outcome if the choice of revascularization (PCI versus CABG) is based on the physician decision, rather than randomization. Limited experiences have compared revascularization by DES‐PCI versus CABG in DM patients with MVD. Methods: From August 2004 to August 2005, 220 consecutive DM patients with MVD underwent DES‐PCI (93) or CABG (127) at our Institution. The type of revascularization was dependent on patient and/or physician choice. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stroke. Results: Compared with PCI patients, CABG patients had higher prevalence of 3‐vessel disease (P < 0.001), significant LAD involvement (P < 0.001), presence of total occlusions (P = 0.04), collateral circulation (P < 0.001). At 2‐year follow‐up, MACCE were not different between CABG group and DES‐PCI group (OR 1.2; P = 0.6) and, only when the clinical judgment on the revascularization choice was excluded at propensity analysis, DES‐PCI increased the risk of 24‐month MACCE in total population (OR 1.8; P = 0.04). Conclusions: For patients with DM and MVD, a clinical judgment‐based revascularization by DES‐PCI is not associated with worse 2‐year outcome compared with CABG. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.