Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting to Treat Ischemic Cardiomyopathy?

Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction: Insight into the Variable Nature of Left Ventricular Systolic Function

The progress of contemporary cardiovascular therapy has led to improved survival in patients with myocardial disease. However, the development of heart failure (HF) represents a common clinical challenge, regardless of the underlying myocardial pathology, due to the severely impaired quality of life and increased mortality comparable with malignant neoplasms. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the main index of systolic function and a key predictor of mortality among HF patients, hence its improvement represents the main indicator of response to instituted therapy. The introduction of complex pharmacotherapy for HF, increased availability of cardiac-implantable electronic devices and advances in the management of secondary causes of HF, including arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, have led to significant increase in the proportion of patients with prominent improvement or even normalization of LVEF, paving the way for the identification of a new subgroup of HF with an improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). Accumulating data has indicated that these patients share far better long-term prognoses than patients with stable or worsening LVEF. Due to diverse HF aetiology, the prevalence of HFimpEF ranges from roughly 10 to 40%, while the search for reliable predictors and genetic associations corresponding with this clinical presentation is under way. As contemporary guidelines focus mainly on the management of HF patients with clearly defined LVEF, the present review aimed to characterize the definition, epidemiology, predictors, clinical significance and principles of therapy of patients with HFimpEF.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Medicine in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduced all-cause mortality rates out to 10 years compared with medical therapy alone (MED) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤35%). We examined the economic implications of these results.

METHODS

We used a decision-analytic patient-level simulation model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of CABG and MED using patient-level resource use and clinical data collected in the STICH trial. Patient-level costs were calculated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts during trial follow-up. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective.

RESULTS

For the CABG arm, we estimated 6.53 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 5.70-7.53) and a lifetime cost of $140 059 (95% CI, $106 401 to $180 992). For the MED arm, the corresponding estimates were 5.52 (95% CI, 5.06-6.09) quality-adjusted life-years and $74 894 lifetime cost (95% CI, $58 372 to $93 541). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG compared with MED was $63 989 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, CABG was found to be economically favorable compared with MED in 87% of microsimulations.

CONCLUSIONS

In the STICH trial, in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function, CABG was economically attractive relative to MED at current benchmarks for value in the United States.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Coronary Artery Diseases and Moderate Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Purpose

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are two revascularization strategies for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular dysfunction. However, the comparisons of effectiveness between the two strategies are insufficient. This study is aimed to compare the effectiveness between PCI and CABG among patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

Patients and Methods

A total of 1487 CAD patients with moderate reduced ejection fraction (36%≤EF≤40%), who underwent either PCI or CABG, were enrolled in a real-world cohort study (No. ChiCTR2100044378). Clinical outcomes included short- and long-term all-cause mortality, rates of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and repeat revascularization. Propensity score matching was used to balance the two cohorts.

Results

PCI was associated with lower 30-day mortality rate (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.35 [0.15–0.83]; P=0.02). At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, PCI and CABG had similar all-cause death (HR [95% CI], 0.82 [0.56–1.20]; P=0.30) and heart failure (HF) hospitalization (HR [95% CI], 0.93 [0.54–1.60]; P=0.79), but PCI had higher risk of repeat revascularization (HR [95% CI], 8.62 [3.67–20.23]; P<0.001). Improvement in EF measured at 3 months later after revascularization was also similar between PCI and CABG (P for interaction=0.87).

Conclusion

CAD patients with moderate reduced EF who had PCI had lower short-term mortality rate but higher risk of repeat revascularization during follow-up than patients who had CABG. PCI showed comparable long-term survival, HF hospitalization risk, and EF improvement.