Min Chul Kim, Seung-Jung Park, Duk-Woo Park, Jung-Min Ahn, Do-Yoon Kang, Won-Jang Kim, Chang-Wook Nam, Jin-Ok Jeong, In-Ho Chae, Hiroki Shiomi, Hsien-Li Kao, Joo-Yong Hahn, Sung-Ho Her, Bong-Ki Lee, Tae Hoon Ahn, Kiyuk Chang, Jei Keon Chae, David Smyth, Gary S Mintz, Gregg W Stone, Youngkeun Ahn
{"title":"Preventive percutaneous coronary intervention for non-flow-limiting vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques in diabetes: the PREVENT trial.","authors":"Min Chul Kim, Seung-Jung Park, Duk-Woo Park, Jung-Min Ahn, Do-Yoon Kang, Won-Jang Kim, Chang-Wook Nam, Jin-Ok Jeong, In-Ho Chae, Hiroki Shiomi, Hsien-Li Kao, Joo-Yong Hahn, Sung-Ho Her, Bong-Ki Lee, Tae Hoon Ahn, Kiyuk Chang, Jei Keon Chae, David Smyth, Gary S Mintz, Gregg W Stone, Youngkeun Ahn","doi":"10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The efficacy and safety of preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treating vulnerable plaques in diabetic patients remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11976,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":37.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf273","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
The European Heart Journal is a renowned international journal that focuses on cardiovascular medicine. It is published weekly and is the official journal of the European Society of Cardiology. This peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing high-quality clinical and scientific material pertaining to all aspects of cardiovascular medicine. It covers a diverse range of topics including research findings, technical evaluations, and reviews. Moreover, the journal serves as a platform for the exchange of information and discussions on various aspects of cardiovascular medicine, including educational matters.
In addition to original papers on cardiovascular medicine and surgery, the European Heart Journal also presents reviews, clinical perspectives, ESC Guidelines, and editorial articles that highlight recent advancements in cardiology. Additionally, the journal actively encourages readers to share their thoughts and opinions through correspondence.