The FREEDOM Trial: Completed Study with Long-Term Follow-Up Data Available
The FREEDOM (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease) trial is a completed randomized controlled trial that demonstrated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease. 1, 2
Trial Design and Completion Status
The FREEDOM trial randomized 1,900 patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease to either PCI with drug-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents) or CABG, all on a background of optimal medical therapy 2
The original trial completed with a median follow-up of 3.8 years, reporting results in 2012 1
Extended follow-up data became available through the FREEDOM Follow-On study, which enrolled 943 patients (49.6% of the original cohort) from 25 of the 140 original centers, with median follow-up extending to 7.5 years (range 0 to 13.2 years) 2
Primary Findings at Original Trial Completion
At 5 years, CABG significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared to PCI (P=0.049) and myocardial infarction (P<0.001) 1
The trial found borderline lower mortality after CABG than after PCI at 5 years (relative risk 0.63; P=0.049), though the predefined cutoff for the primary endpoint was P=0.044, and the trial was not specifically powered for mortality 1
Approximately 30% of enrolled patients had recent acute coronary syndrome (interval unspecified), though no specific subgroup analysis was performed for this population 1
Long-Term Follow-Up Results
During the entire follow-up period (including both original trial and extended follow-up), there were 314 total deaths: 204 deaths during the original trial and 110 deaths during the FREEDOM Follow-On study 2
All-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the PCI group (24.3%, 159 deaths) compared to the CABG group (18.3%, 112 deaths; hazard ratio 1.36; 95% CI 1.07-1.74; P=0.01) over the entire follow-up period 2
In the extended follow-up cohort of 943 patients, all-cause mortality was 23.7% (99 deaths) in the PCI group versus 18.7% (72 deaths) in the CABG group (hazard ratio 1.32; 95% CI 0.97-1.78; P=0.076) 2
Clinical Impact and Guideline Integration
The FREEDOM trial results influenced the 2014 AHA/ACC guidelines for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, which state that CABG is superior to PCI in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events in diabetic patients with multivessel disease 1
Bayesian analysis of FREEDOM combined with prior randomized controlled trials demonstrated with 99.9% probability that mortality is at least 10% lower after CABG, with 96.8% probability that mortality is at least 30% lower after CABG compared to PCI in diabetic patients with multivessel disease 1
The trial's findings are particularly relevant for patients with more severe and complex coronary artery disease, as demonstrated by the SYNTAX trial showing CABG superiority increases with disease complexity 1
Important Caveats for Patient Selection
The FREEDOM trial specifically enrolled patients with 2- or 3-vessel coronary artery disease, not single-vessel disease 1
Patients with less severe and complex coronary disease may have similar outcomes with PCI versus CABG, making individual anatomic assessment critical 1
The trial used first-generation drug-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting); newer-generation stents were not evaluated 2
All patients received optimal medical therapy as background treatment, making this a comparison of revascularization strategies on top of guideline-directed medical management 2
Distinction from Other "FREEDOM" Studies
Do not confuse the FREEDOM cardiovascular outcomes trial (revascularization in diabetes) with the FREEDOM trial testing continuous subcutaneous exenatide infusion (ITCA 650), a GLP-1 receptor agonist formulation 3
The GLP-1 receptor agonist FREEDOM trial reported dissimilar results to prior GLP-1 trials and should not influence considerations about approved GLP-1 formulations 3