Routine stress testing in diabetic patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: the POST-PCI trial.

Background and Aims: The optimal follow-up surveillance strategy for high-risk diabetic patients with had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unknown.
Methods: The POST-PCI (Pragmatic Trial Comparing Symptom-Oriented versus Routine Stress Testing in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) study was a randomized trial comparing a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing at 1 year vs. standard care alone after high-risk PCI. Randomization was stratified according to diabetes status. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 2 years.
Results: Among 1706 randomized patients, participants with diabetes (n = 660, 38.7%) had more frequent comorbidities and a higher prevalence of complex anatomical or procedural characteristics than those without diabetes (n = 1046, 61.3%). Patients with diabetes had a 52% greater risk of primary composite events [hazard ratio (HR) 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.27; P = .039]. The 2-year incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar between strategies of routine functional testing or standard care alone in diabetic patients (7.1% vs. 7.5%; HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.53-1.66; P = .82) and non-diabetic patients (4.6% vs. 5.1%; HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.51-1.55; P = .68) (interaction term for diabetes: P = .91). The incidences of invasive coronary angiography and repeat revascularization after 1 year were higher in the routine functional-testing group than the standard-care group irrespective of diabetes status.
Conclusions: Despite being at higher risk for adverse clinical events, patients with diabetes who had undergone high-risk PCI did not derive incremental benefit from routine surveillance stress testing compared with standard care alone during follow-up.
(© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)