The diabetic patient is at high risk for coronary artery disease. Incidence as well as severity of the disease is highly increased
in comparison to non–diabetic patients. The revascularization of the diabetic patient is a great challenge, since the longterm
results are disappointing when compared to non–diabetic patients. The success of coronary artery bypass grafting is limited
by increased perioperative mortality and a faster occlusion of especially venous bypass grafts. In percutaneous interventions
the excessive high restenosis rates worsen longterm results. Several clinical trials investigated the outcome of the two revascularization
strategies and could demonstrate at least a tendency towards better results when the operative approach was chosen. Particularily,
the BARI trial showed reduced mortality for surgery when compared to percutaneous coronary interventions. However, in this
trial, in 87% of patients undergoing bypass surgery all stenoses were succesfully treated, whereas in patients undergoing
percutaneous coronary intervention only 76% of all stenoses were primarily succesfully treated. In addition, no stents were
used in this trial.
Furthermore, the enrollment of the previous trials dates one decade ago. These trials do therefore not necessarily represent
the current standard therapy, especially for percutaneous coronary interventions. The restenosis rate could be decreased in
recent years by means of drug–eluting stents and an aggressive antiplatelet therapy from more than 50% to less than 10% leading
to considerably improved long–term results. Therefore, percutaneous coronary interventions have developed to be a reasonable
alternative to bypass surgery. Different clinical trials are currently underway (BARI 2D, CarDIA, FREEDOM) comparing the outcome
of the two approaches.
Key words Coronary artery disease - diabetes mellitus - revascularization - percutaneous coronary intervention - aorto coronary bypass surgery