1 / 44

Paper :: Prevention

Cardiac Outcomes After Screening for Asymptomatic Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes The DIAD Study : A Randomized Controlled Trial. Paper :: Prevention. The Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAD study) JAMA . 2009;301(15):1547-1555. Context.

herve
Download Presentation

Paper :: Prevention

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Cardiac Outcomes After Screening for Asymptomatic Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Type 2 DiabetesThe DIAD Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  2. Paper :: Prevention • The Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAD study) • JAMA. 2009;301(15):1547-1555

  3. Context • Coronary artery disease (CAD) : major cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with type 2 DM • Often asymptomatic until MI or sudden cardiac death • Type 2 DM = CAD risk equivalent • Current standard of care emphasizes the reduction of cardiovascular risk factors • Butthe utility of screening patients with type 2 DM for asymptomatic CAD is controversial.

  4. About MPI – Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

  5. Objective • To assess whether routine screening for CAD identifies patients with type 2 DM as being at high cardiac risk and whether it affects their cardiac outcomes.

  6. Method Inclusion criteria (3) Exclusion criteria (7) • Age 50-75 years • Onset of type 2 DM occurred at age  30 years • No history of ketoacidosis • Angina pectoris or chest discomfort • Stress test or CAG within the prior 3 years • History of MI, heart failure, or coronary revascularization • Abnormal rest EKG results • Pathological Q waves • Ischemic (1 mm depression) ST segments • Deep negative T waves, or • Complete LBBB

  7. Method Exclusion criteria (7) • Any clinical indication for stress testing • Active bronchospasm precluding the use of adenosine • Limited life expectancy due to cancer or end-stage renal or liver disease

  8. เหลือ1,700 เข้าร่วม1,123 (66%) 14 centers in USA and Canada

  9. Method • Between July 2000 and August 2002. (25 month) • DIAD protocol • The study design and procedures were explained by a member of the local research team • All participants • History : health status, medications, intervening cardiac events, additional stress testing, CAG, and revascularizationat 6-month intervals • Physical examination : diabetic neuropathy, cardiac autonomic dysfunction • Lab : Blood and urine laboratory testing

  10. Method • Randomization • Sequential identification number at each site • A corresponding sealed envelope was opened • Random permuted blocks (block size 6) sequence 1:1 • 561 participants was screening with adenosine Tc-99m sestamibi MPI, interpreted by nuclear cardiologists

  11. Method - Cardiac event Primary end point Secondary end points • Nonfatal MI • Cardiac death-included fatal MI (within 30 days) • Death due to heart failure or arrhythmia • Sudden cardiac death • Unstable angina • Heart failure • Stroke • Coronary revascularization

  12. Method – Statistic analysis

  13. Was the assignment of patients to screening randomised ? 1A – Yes No Unclear

  14. Were measures objective or were the patients and clinicians kept “blind” to which treatment was being received? 3 – Yes No Unclear

  15. Result • Mean (SD) 4.8 (0.9) years • Median 5 years • F/U was complete 97% at 3.5 years • Last data collected in Sep2007

  16. ResultBaseline characteristic overview • Age • DM duration (year) • BMI • HbA1C • Serum creatinine • Clinical risk factor • Gender • Race • DM treatment • DM complication • Current smoking • Family history of premature CAD

  17. Were the groups similar at the start of the trial? 1B – Yes No Unclear

  18. Aside from the allocated screened, were groups screened equally? 2A – Yes No Unclear

  19. Were all patients who entered the trial accounted for? – and were they analysed in the groups to which they were randomised? 2B – Yes No Unclear

  20. Result :: Primary outcomes

  21. Result :: Primary outcomes

  22. Result :: Primary outcomes • 32 cardiac event (17 MI + 15 cardiac death) • Overall cumulative 5-year cardiac event rate = 2.9 % (average 0.6% per year) Hazard ratio = 0.88; 95% CI 0.44-1.8; log-rank 0.12; P = 0.73

  23. Result :: Primary outcomes

  24. Result :: Primary outcomes

  25. Result :: Primary outcomes • Mean (SD) MPI defect size[P = 0.12] • Cardiac event 4.1% (6.6%) • No cardiac event 1.4% (2.2%) • Negative predictive value of having a normal MPI = 98% (401of 409). • Positive predictive value • 6% (7 of 113) of patients for any MPI abnormality • 12% (4 of 33) of patients for moderate or large MPI defects.

  26. Result :: Secondary outcomes

  27. Result :: Secondary outcomesCoronary angiography and revascularization Repeat stress MPI 3 year (n = 358) : improved

  28. Result:: Secondary outcomesMedical treatment

  29. Result:: Secondary outcomesPredictors of cardiac events • Male sex • Diabetes duration • Microalbuminuria/proteinuria • Serum creatinine • Symptomsof peripheral neuropathy • Diminished peripheral sensation • Cardiac autonomic dysfunction • Peripheral vascular disease • Elevated LDL • Family history of premature CAD

  30. Independent role of • Male sex • Serum creatinine • Cardiac autonomic dysfunction • Peripheral vascular disease • LDL level

  31. How large was the screening effect? Re1– Hazard Ratio =0.88 Relative Risk = 2.7%/3.0% = 0.9 Absolute Risk Reduction = 3.0%-2.7% = 0.3% Relative Risk Reduction = 1.0-0.9 = 0.1 or 10% Number Needed to Screen = 1/0.003 = 333 Yes No Unclear

  32. How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect? Re2– Yes No Unclear

  33. Comment • Cardiac event ratesในประชากรที่ศึกษา 0.6% per year • อัตราน้อยกว่าที่คาดการณ์ไว้ เห็นผลการเกิด cardiac event จากการคัดกรองได้ไม่ชัดเจน • อัตราต่ำกว่าบางการศึกษาอื่นที่มีมาก่อน (retrospective analysis; cardiology laboratories) 3-4 เท่า เนื่องจากประชากรในการศึกษาอื่นนั้นๆ มี risk มากกว่า • อัตราใกล้เคียงกับ 3 การศึกษาในการ screening asymptomatic ischemia in type 2 DM • ACCORD study = 1.4% per year มีการกำหนด primary outcome definition, selection older patient with specific additional risk

  34. Comment • ความผิดปกติที่ตรวจพบจากการทำ MPI สัมพันธ์กับอุบัติการณ์การเกิด cardiac event แม้ว่าจะมี PPV ต่ำ และยังมีโอกาสเกิด cardiac event ได้แม้ในคนที่ผล MPI ปกติ • Cardiac outcomes ที่ดี เกิดจาก • Aggressive guideline-driven management of cardiac risk factor • การ screen ซ้ำที่ 3 ปีพบว่ามี resolution of inducible ischemia

  35. Comment • ผู้ป่วยที่คาดว่าจะมี intermediate cardiac risk • Long-standingdiabetes • Older age • Obesity • ผู้ป่วยที่คาดว่าจะมี high cardiac risk • Poor ability to exercise • จากผล PPV, NPV พบว่ามากกว่าครึ่งหนึ่งของ cardiac event เกิดใน normal screening test

  36. Limitations • Cardiac event rates were significantly lower than originally anticipated at the time of the design of the study • Not have the power to exclude a small difference between the screened and unscreened participants • Non protocol stress tests were done during F/U when clinically indicated in both groups • Screening led to only a modest reduction in subsequent diagnostic testing • In no-screening group : crossover to a physician-direct screening strategy and theoretically

  37. Clinical implications • Routine screening for inducible ischemia in asymptomatic patients with type 2 DM cannot be advocated • Yield of detecting significant inducible ischemia is relatively low. • Overall cardiac event rate is low. • Routine screening doesnot appear to affect overall outcome. • Routine screening of millions of asymptomatic diabetic patients would be prohibitively expensive

  38. Will the results help me in caring for my patient? (External Validity/Applicability)

  39. Screening criteria

More Related