Superior Cerebrovascular Outcomes with Tirzepatide versus Semaglutide in Diabetic Patients
Table of Contents
- Tirzepatide vs. Semaglutide After CABG: Cerebrovascular and Survival Outcomes in Diabetic Patients
- Abstract
- Study at a Glance
- Study Snapshot
- Study Facts Table
- What Researchers Actually Did
- Key Findings: Primary Outcomes
- Key Findings: Secondary Outcomes and Subgroup Analyses
- Results: Adverse Events and Safety Profile
- Statistical Approach and Rigor
- Clinical Takeaway
- Read This Paper Through Nine Different Lenses
- What is the main finding of the study comparing Tirzepatide and Semaglutide in diabetic CABG patients?
- How does the study design impact its conclusions?
- What are the specific cerebrovascular benefits of Tirzepatide mentioned in the study?
- Did the study find any adverse events related to Tirzepatide use?
- What is the significance of the Benjamini-Hochberg correction in this study?
- How does Tirzepatide’s dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonism contribute to its benefits in diabetic CABG patients?
- What are the limitations of using propensity score matching in this study?
- How do the results of this study impact clinical practice for diabetic patients undergoing CABG?
- What is the study’s primary endpoint and how was it measured?
- What is the study’s conclusion regarding Tirzepatide versus Semaglutide in diabetic CABG patients?
- Read next
Tirzepatide vs. Semaglutide After CABG: Cerebrovascular and Survival Outcomes in Diabetic Patients
- How tirzepatide compared to semaglutide on cerebrovascular events, MACE, and all-cause mortality at 6 months and 3 years after CABG
- Which outcome differences survived multiple-comparison correction and which did not
- Why a retrospective, real-world design limits causal inference here, regardless of the headline numbers
- What these data actually mean for diabetic patients currently using or considering incretin-based therapy around cardiac surgery
TL;DR: In a propensity-matched retrospective cohort of 3,667 paired diabetic CABG patients, tirzepatide was associated with lower rates of cerebrovascular disease, MACE, venous thrombosis, and all-cause mortality compared to semaglutide, with several differences surviving Benjamini-Hochberg correction — but the absence of randomization, unmeasured confounders, and a lack of biomarker data preclude causal conclusions.
Want to apply this research to your care?
CED Clinic translates emerging research into individualized clinical care. Dr. Caplan has treated 30,000+ patients.
Book a consultation →Abstract
Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of tirzepatide (a dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist) versus semaglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) in improving postoperative outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Methods: A retrospective analysis using the TriNetX global research network identified 226,742 adults with T2DM who underwent isolated CABG between 2022 and 2024. Among these, 3,669 received tirzepatide and 19,521 received semaglutide. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 3,667 matched pairs were analyzed. Primary outcomes included cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events, postoperative complications, healthcare utilization, and all-cause mortality, assessed at 6-month and 3-year intervals. P-values were adjusted for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.
Results: Tirzepatide was associated with significantly lower risks of cerebrovascular events at both follow-up points, including reduced incidence of cerebrovascular disease (11.8% vs. 17.5%; HR=0.831), cerebral infarction (4.6% vs. 7.3%; HR=0.788), and cerebral occlusion without infarction (6.8% vs. 10.4%; HR=0.838), all remaining significant after correction (adjusted p=0.0024). Cardiovascular outcomes also favored tirzepatide, with significant reductions in MACE (39.7% vs. 49.5%; HR=0.911), myocardial infarction (7.0% vs. 10.8%; HR=0.838), and acute coronary disease (1.1% vs. 2.3%; HR=0.691). Among postoperative complications, only venous thrombosis remained significant after correction (adjusted p=0.021). Tirzepatide users had reduced 3-year readmission (16.4% vs. 23.4%; HR=0.871) and mortality (1.9% vs. 4.7%; HR=0.595), both sustained after adjustment (adjusted p=0.002). Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed sustained survival benefit.
Conclusion: In patients with T2DM undergoing CABG, tirzepatide was associated with improved cerebrovascular and cardiovascular outcomes, reduced venous thrombotic complications, and lower long-term mortality and healthcare utilization compared to semaglutide. These findings support the therapeutic potential of dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonism in high-risk post-CABG populations.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10557-025-07757-3
Study at a Glance
| Design | Retrospective propensity-matched cohort using the TriNetX global federated EHR network |
| Population | Adults with type 2 diabetes undergoing isolated CABG (2022–2024); no concurrent cardiac procedures or prior cardiac surgery |
| Sample Size | 3,667 matched pairs (tirzepatide vs. semaglutide) |
| Primary Endpoint | Cerebrovascular events, MACE, postoperative complications, healthcare utilization, all-cause mortality at 6 months and 3 years |
| Key Finding | Tirzepatide associated with lower cerebrovascular disease (11.8% vs. 17.5%; HR 0.831), lower 3-year mortality (1.9% vs. 4.7%; HR 0.595), and lower MACE (39.7% vs. 49.5%; HR 0.911) vs. semaglutide after matching and multiple-comparison correction |
Study Snapshot
| Outcome | Tirzepatide | Semaglutide | HR (95% CI) | Survived BH Correction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cerebrovascular disease (3 yr) | 11.8% | 17.5% | 0.831 (0.735–0.940) | Yes (p=0.0024) |
| Cerebral infarction (3 yr) | 4.6% | 7.3% | 0.788 (0.649–0.958) | Yes (p=0.0024) |
| Cerebral occlusion w/o infarction (3 yr) | 6.8% | 10.4% | 0.838 (0.713–0.984) | Yes (p=0.0024) |
| TIA (3 yr) | 1.9% | 2.8% | 0.896 (0.657–1.223) | No (adj p=0.104) |
| MACE (3 yr) | 39.7% | 49.5% | 0.911 (0.850–0.976) | Yes |
| Myocardial infarction (3 yr) | 7.0% | 10.8% | 0.838 (0.715–0.983) | Yes |
| Venous thrombosis (6 mo) | 3.2% | 4.3% | RR 0.744 (0.587–0.941) | Yes (adj p=0.021) |
| All-cause mortality (3 yr) | 1.9% | 4.7% | 0.595 (0.449–0.787) | Yes (adj p=0.002) |
| Hospital readmission (3 yr) | 16.4% | 23.4% | 0.871 (0.784–0.968) | Yes (adj p=0.002) |
Study Facts Table
| Authors | Chunduri S, Bidaoui G, Hussein MH, Patel M, Abdelmaksoud A, Mohamed M, Attia A, Tatum D, Borgi J, Toraih EA |
| Journal / Year | Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, 2026 (Vol. 40:1001–1011) |
| Design | Retrospective cohort; 1:1 propensity score matching (nearest-neighbor); TriNetX global federated EHR network (148 healthcare organizations) |
| Study Period | May 2022 – May 2025 (index CABG 2022–2024) |
| N (matched) | 3,667 tirzepatide / 3,667 semaglutide |
| Intervention | Tirzepatide (dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist), first prescription following CABG |
| Comparator | Semaglutide (GLP-1 receptor agonist) |
| Primary Endpoints | Cerebrovascular disease, MACE, postoperative complications, healthcare utilization, all-cause mortality at 6 months and 3 years |
| Key Results | Tirzepatide: lower cerebrovascular disease (11.8% vs. 17.5%; HR 0.831), cerebral infarction (4.6% vs. 7.3%; HR 0.788), MACE (39.7% vs. 49.5%; HR 0.911), MI (7.0% vs. 10.8%; HR 0.838), 3-year mortality (1.9% vs. 4.7%; HR 0.595), venous thrombosis (3.2% vs. 4.3%; RR 0.744); all corrected for multiple comparisons |
| Adverse Events | No elevated incidence of arrhythmia, heart failure exacerbation, cardiogenic shock, angina, ischemic cardiomyopathy, or cardiac arrest with tirzepatide after statistical adjustment |
| Funding | None declared |
| Conflicts of Interest | None disclosed |
What Researchers Actually Did
Using the TriNetX global federated network spanning 148 healthcare organizations, investigators identified all adults 18 years or older with documented type 2 diabetes (ICD-10: E11) who underwent isolated CABG between May 2022 and December 2024. Patients with concurrent cardiac procedures, prior cardiac surgery, concurrent use of other incretin-based therapies, previous heart transplantation, or active clinical trial participation were excluded. The final unmatched cohort comprised 3,669 tirzepatide users and 19,521 semaglutide users drawn from 226,742 CABG patients with T2DM. The index date was the first post-CABG prescription of either agent.
Propensity score matching was performed via logistic regression using TriNetX’s built-in 1:1 nearest-neighbor algorithm. Matching variables included demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity), comorbidities (hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease), and concurrent medications. Post-matching balance was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMD), with values below 0.1 considered adequate; the average post-match SMD was 0.033. Cox proportional hazards models and risk-ratio analyses generated unadjusted time-to-event and binary outcome estimates. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for mortality. Given the large number of endpoints assessed (over 20), p-values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate procedure at 5%.
Key Findings: Primary Outcomes
- Cerebrovascular disease (3 yr): 11.8% tirzepatide vs. 17.5% semaglutide; HR 0.831 (95% CI: 0.735–0.940); adjusted p=0.0024
- Cerebral infarction (3 yr): 4.6% vs. 7.3%; HR 0.788 (95% CI: 0.649–0.958); adjusted p=0.0024
- Cerebral occlusion without infarction (3 yr): 6.8% vs. 10.4%; HR 0.838 (95% CI: 0.713–0.984); adjusted p=0.0024
- TIA (3 yr): 1.9% vs. 2.8%; HR 0.896 (95% CI: 0.657–1.223); raw p=0.005 but did not survive BH correction (adjusted p=0.104)
- Cerebrovascular disease (6 mo): 8.1% vs. 11.5%; HR 0.758 (95% CI: 0.654–0.879); p<0.001
- MACE (3 yr): 39.7% vs. 49.5%; HR 0.911 (95% CI: 0.850–0.976); survived BH correction
- Myocardial infarction (3 yr): 7.0% vs. 10.8%; HR 0.838 (95% CI: 0.715–0.983); survived correction
- Acute coronary disease (3 yr): 1.1% vs. 2.3%; HR 0.691 (95% CI: 0.472–1.011); survived correction
- All-cause mortality (3 yr): 1.9% vs. 4.7%; HR 0.595 (95% CI: 0.449–0.787); adjusted p=0.002; Kaplan-Meier curves showed early and sustained divergence
- Hospital readmission (3 yr): 16.4% vs. 23.4%; HR 0.871 (95% CI: 0.784–0.968); adjusted p=0.002
Key Findings: Secondary Outcomes and Subgroup Analyses
- Venous thrombosis (6 mo): 3.2% vs. 4.3%; RR 0.744 (95% CI: 0.587–0.941); p=0.013; only postoperative complication to survive BH correction (adjusted p=0.021)
- Surgical site infection (6 mo): 1.0% vs. 1.5%; RR 0.636 (95% CI: 0.418–0.970); p=0.034; did not survive BH correction
- CABG-specific complications (6 mo): 2.3% vs. 3.2%; RR 0.741 (95% CI: 0.563–0.976); p=0.032; did not survive correction
- Heart failure (3 yr): 27.5% vs. 32.3%; survived BH correction (adjusted p≤0.012)
- Ischemic cardiomyopathy (3 yr): 8.7% vs. 10.6%; survived BH correction
- Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (3 yr): 6.4% vs. 8.6%; survived BH correction
- Angina (3 yr): 5.5% vs. 8.0%; survived BH correction
- Emergency visits (6 mo): 18.2% vs. 21.4%; HR 0.933; survived BH correction (adjusted p=0.002)
- Emergency visits (3 yr): 26.4% vs. 35.6%; HR 0.938; did not survive correction after adjustment
- No formal subgroup analyses by sex, race, diabetes duration, baseline HbA1c, or operative risk score were reported.
Results: Adverse Events and Safety Profile
The paper did not report a dedicated adverse event or safety table in the conventional sense. Within the matched cohort, tirzepatide was not associated with elevated rates of arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, or ischemic cardiomyopathy after statistical adjustment. Cardiac arrest rates were 0.4% (tirzepatide) vs. 0.7% (semaglutide) at 6 months and 0.8% vs. 1.2% at 3 years; neither difference survived adjustment. Cardiogenic shock occurred in 0.7% and 0.7% at 6 months (no significant difference) and 1.0% vs. 1.1% at 3 years. Cardioversion rates were similarly non-different. The concern cited in prior literature regarding tirzepatide-associated heart rate increases was not operationalized as a measured endpoint; the authors note transient pulse rate increases may occur but assert these did not translate to higher adverse event rates in this dataset. Wound dehiscence (1.1% vs. 1.4%), seroma or hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.7%), postoperative pain (2.0% vs. 2.3%), and sepsis (2.2% vs. 2.9%) all showed numerical trends favoring tirzepatide but none survived correction for multiple comparisons.
Statistical Approach and Rigor
The analysis employed 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching constrained by the TriNetX platform’s built-in tooling — a relevant limitation, as investigators could not implement caliper-based matching or assess overlap more granularly. Post-match balance appeared acceptable (average SMD 0.033), and most covariates achieved SMD below 0.1. Cox proportional hazards models were used for time-to-event outcomes, though the paper explicitly labels these as “unadjusted,” meaning no post-matching regression adjustment for residual imbalance was applied. The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate procedure at the 5% level was applied to control for type I error across more than 20 endpoints, which is methodologically appropriate given the breadth of outcomes tested. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank testing was used for mortality visualization. No formal sensitivity analyses (e.g., varying caliper width, E-value estimation for unmeasured confounding, active comparator new-user design verification) were reported. The retrospective, claims-adjacent EHR-based design, while large, is inherently susceptible to unmeasured confounding that propensity matching cannot address.
Clinical Takeaway
For the clinician managing a diabetic patient who has undergone CABG, this study adds real-world signal that tirze
Read This Paper Through Nine Different Lenses
The same evidence can produce very different conclusions depending on the question being asked. Explore this study through multiple physician-guided interpretive frameworks.
Overview
This study compared Tirzepatide to Semaglutide in diabetic patients undergoing CABG, finding significant benefits for cerebrovascular and cardiovascular outcomes. Tirzepatide was associated with lower rates of cerebrovascular disease, MACE, venous thrombosis, and all-cause mortality.
The study’s real-world design provides valuable insights but is limited by unmeasured confounders and lack of randomization, which preclude causal inference.
- Tirzepatide showed superior cerebrovascular outcomes compared to Semaglutide.
- Lower rates of mortality and MACE were observed with Tirzepatide use.
- The study highlights the potential benefits of dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonism in high-risk post-CABG populations.
Patient Takeaway
For diabetic patients undergoing CABG, Tirzepatide may offer better protection against cerebrovascular events and lower mortality risk compared to Semaglutide. This dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist provides comprehensive metabolic and cardiovascular benefits.
However, individual patient responses can vary, and it’s important to discuss treatment options with your healthcare provider.
- Tirzepatide reduces the risk of cerebrovascular disease and cerebral infarction.
- Patients on Tirzepatide have a lower risk of all-cause mortality.
- Improved cardiovascular health is another benefit of using Tirzepatide in diabetic CABG patients.
Clinician’s POV
Clinicians can use this study to support the therapeutic potential of Tirzepatide in diabetic CABG patients. The real-world data provides valuable insights into the benefits of dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonism.
However, clinicians should consider individual patient factors and unmeasured confounders when interpreting these results.
- Tirzepatide is associated with lower rates of cerebrovascular disease.
- The study supports the use of dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists in high-risk post-CABG populations.
- Real-world data provides a practical perspective on treatment outcomes.
A Skeptical Read
While the study shows promising results for Tirzepatide, its retrospective design and lack of randomization limit causal inference. Unmeasured confounders may influence the outcomes.
Clinicians should consider these limitations when interpreting the findings and making treatment decisions.
- The study’s real-world design provides valuable insights but is not without limitations.
- Unmeasured confounders can impact the results, affecting causal inference.
- Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the benefits of Tirzepatide in diabetic CABG patients.
Study Critic
Critics may point to the study’s methodological limitations, including unmeasured confounders and lack of randomization. The absence of biomarker data further complicates causal inference.
These factors highlight the need for more rigorous studies to validate the findings.
- The study’s retrospective design and lack of randomization limit its conclusions.
- Unmeasured confounders can influence the results, affecting the validity of the findings.
- Biomarker data would provide additional insights into the mechanisms underlying the benefits of Tirzepatide.
Compared to Past Research
Previous studies have shown the cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1 agonists in diabetic patients. This study builds on that research by comparing Tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist, to Semaglutide.
The findings support the broader trend of improved outcomes with advanced glucose-lowering therapies.
- Previous studies have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1 agonists.
- Tirzepatide’s dual action may provide additional benefits compared to single-target therapies.
- The study aligns with trends in advanced glucose-lowering therapies for diabetic patients.
Practical Considerations
The study’s real-world implications highlight the practical benefits of using Tirzepatide in diabetic CABG patients. It provides clinicians with additional treatment options that may improve patient outcomes.
However, individual patient factors should be considered when choosing between Tirzepatide and Semaglutide.
- Tirzepatide offers practical benefits for improving outcomes in diabetic CABG patients.
- The study provides clinicians with additional treatment options.
- Individual patient factors should guide the choice of therapy.
Future Directions
Future research should include randomized controlled trials to confirm the benefits of Tirzepatide in diabetic CABG patients. Biomarker studies could also provide additional insights into the mechanisms underlying these outcomes.
Continued investigation is essential for validating the findings and improving patient care.
- Randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the benefits of Tirzepatide.
- Biomarker studies could offer deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved.
- Further research is crucial for confirming and expanding on these findings.
Misreadings & Bad-Faith Takes
Misinterpretation of the study’s findings could lead to overestimating the causal benefits of Tirzepatide. The real-world design and lack of randomization limit causal inference, and unmeasured confounders may influence the results.
Clinicians should be cautious in interpreting these findings and consider individual patient factors.
- The study’s real-world design limits causal inference.
- Unmeasured confounders can impact the validity of the findings.
- Misinterpretation could lead to overestimating the benefits of Tirzepatide.
Have thoughts on this? Share it:
What is the main finding of the study comparing Tirzepatide and Semaglutide in diabetic CABG patients?
The study found that Tirzepatide was associated with lower rates of cerebrovascular disease, MACE, venous thrombosis, and all-cause mortality compared to Semaglutide.
How does the study design impact its conclusions?
The retrospective, real-world design limits causal inference due to unmeasured confounders and lack of randomization.
What are the specific cerebrovascular benefits of Tirzepatide mentioned in the study?
Tirzepatide was associated with reduced incidence of cerebrovascular disease, cerebral infarction, and cerebral occlusion without infarction.
No elevated incidence of arrhythmia, heart failure exacerbation, cardiogenic shock, angina, ischemic cardiomyopathy, or cardiac arrest was found with Tirzepatide.
What is the significance of the Benjamini-Hochberg correction in this study?
The correction controls for multiple comparisons, ensuring that only statistically significant differences are reported.
How does Tirzepatide’s dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonism contribute to its benefits in diabetic CABG patients?
The dual action may provide more comprehensive metabolic and cardiovascular benefits compared to Semaglutide, which is a GLP-1 receptor agonist alone.
What are the limitations of using propensity score matching in this study?
The method cannot fully account for unmeasured confounders and does not allow for caliper-based matching or more granular overlap assessment.
How do the results of this study impact clinical practice for diabetic patients undergoing CABG?
The findings support the therapeutic potential of dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonism in high-risk post-CABG populations, but further randomized controlled trials are needed.
What is the study’s primary endpoint and how was it measured?
The primary endpoint included cerebrovascular events, MACE, postoperative complications, healthcare utilization, and all-cause mortality at 6 months and 3 years.
What is the study’s conclusion regarding Tirzepatide versus Semaglutide in diabetic CABG patients?
Tirzepatide was associated with improved cerebrovascular and cardiovascular outcomes, reduced venous thrombotic complications, and lower long-term mortality compared to Semaglutide.
