[Does diabetes change the anti-ischemic therapeutic options in the symptomatic coronary patient?].

The assessment of results of medical treatment, angioplasty and coronary bypass surgery in diabetic coronary patients is difficult because of the absence of distinction in the subgroups of type 1 and 2 diabetes and of stable and unstable angina. With respect to medical therapy, betablockers are practically without deleterious effects and are effective in diabetic populations. The same is true of other antianginal drugs. Conventional coronary angioplasty is associated with poorer results than the general population in the long-term, partly because of progression of the coronary artery disease and partly because of an increased incidence of restenosis. The use of stents improves these results, which are similar to those of the general population with single vessel disease or those without proteinuria. Coronary bypass surgery, despite a certain perioperative morbidity, is associated with an identical survival rate at 5 years as non-diabetics, providing the internal mammary artery is grafted. The comparison between these methods is resumed in the ACIP study which opposes the 3 strategies, in Morris et al's study comparing medical and surgical approaches and, finally, in the recent BARI trial where patients were randomly allocated to angioplasty or surgery. It would appear that the surgical strategy gives better results in multivessel disease. However, many reserves have been voiced because of the small numbers of patients, the high number of excluded patients and the fact that recent progress in angioplasty with widespread use of stenting associated with the prescription of new antiaggregant drugs was not taken into account.