Similar Benefits of CABG and FFR-Guided PCI in Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Patients: JAMA
A subgroup analysis of the FAME 3 randomized clinical trial has revealed that the relative benefit of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) compared to Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR)-guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) was consistent among patients, regardless of whether they had diabetes.
Outcomes in patients with diabetes after fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using current-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are unknown.
A study was done to investigate the relative treatment effect of PCI vs CABG according to diabetes status with respect to major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 3 years and to evaluate the impact of the SYNTAX score. This is a prespecified subgroup analysis of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) 3 trial, an investigator-initiated, randomized clinical trial conducted at 48 centers worldwide.
The FAME 3 trial enrolled patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease not involving the left main undergoing coronary revascularization between August 2014 and December 2019. Data analysis was conducted in August 2023. Clinical follow-up was performed at hospital discharge and at 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after randomization. Results Of 1500 total patients enrolled, mean (SD) patient age was 65.1 (8.4) years, and 265 patients (17.7%) were female.
The FAME 3 trial included 428 patients with diabetes (28.5%). Patients with diabetes, especially those receiving insulin, had a higher risk of MACCE at 3 years compared with those without diabetes. Regarding relative treatment effect, the risk of MACCE was higher after FFR-guided PCI compared with CABG in both patients with diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% CI, 0.91-2.28; P = .12) and those without diabetes (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.08-2.07; P = .02), with no significant interaction (P for interaction = .94).
In patients with a low SYNTAX score (<23), there was no significant difference in MACCE between PCI and CABG, while in patients with an intermediate to high SYNTAX score (≥23), PCI had a higher risk of MACCE than CABG, regardless of diabetes status. In this subgroup analysis of the FAME 3 randomized clinical trial, the relative benefit of CABG compared with FFR-guided PCI was similar among patients with and without diabetes.
Reference:
Takahashi K, Otsuki H, Zimmermann FM, et al. FFR-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Diabetes. JAMA Cardiol. Published online March 12, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0095
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.