Detection of coronary artery disease in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

In type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) patients, coronary artery disease (CAD) generally is detected in an advanced stage, whereas an asymptomatic stage is commonly missed. Abnormal myocardial perfusion during stress myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) and significant CAD were similar, irrespective of risk factor (RF) profile in our patients, but coronary anatomy differed. An „aggressive“ diagnostic approach, requiring coronary angiography in asymptomatic DM2 patients with < or = 1 associated RF for CAD and abnormal MCE, identified silent CAD, characterized by a more favorable angiographic anatomy. The criterion of > or = 2 RFs did not help to identify patients with a higher prevalence of CAD and is only related to a more severe coronary atherosclerosis with unfavorable anatomy.OBJECTIVES: We sought to verify the effectiveness of current American Diabetes Association screening guidelines in identifying asymptomatic patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). BACKGROUND: In DM2 patients, CAD generally is detected in an advanced stage with an extensive atherosclerosis and poor outcome, whereas CAD in an asymptomatic stage is commonly missed. METHODS: This study included 1,899 asymptomatic DM2 patients (age < or = 60 years). Of these, 1,121 had > or = 2 associated risk factors (RFs), group A, and the remaining 778 had < or = 1 RF, group B, for CAD. All patients underwent dipyridamole myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE), and in those with myocardial perfusion defects, the anatomy of coronary vessels was analyzed by selective coronary angiography. RESULTS: In the two study groups, the prevalence of abnormal MCE (59.4% vs. 60%, p = 0.96) and of a significant CAD (64.6% vs. 65.5%, p = 0.92) was similar, irrespective of RF profile. But coronary anatomy differed: group B had a lower prevalence of three-vessel disease (7.6% vs. 33.3%, p < 0.001), of diffuse disease (18.0% vs. 54.9%, p < 0.001), and of vessel occlusion (3.8% vs. 31.2%, p < 0.001), whereas one-vessel disease was more frequent (70.6% vs. 46.3%, p < 0.001). Coronary anatomy did not allow any revascularization procedure in 45% of group A patients. CONCLUSIONS: An „aggressive“ diagnostic approach, requiring coronary angiography in asymptomatic DM2 patients with < or =1 associated RF for CAD and abnormal MCE, identified patients with a subclinical CAD characterized by a more favorable angiographic anatomy. The criterion of > or =2 RFs did not help to identify asymptomatic patients with a higher prevalence of CAD and is only related to a more severe CAD with unfavorable coronary anatomy.