Patient preferences for coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease

Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Disease Who Were Recommended for But Declined Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients may prefer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, despite heart team recommendations. The outcomes in such patients have not been examined. We sought to examine the results of PCI in patients who were recommended for but declined CABG.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with stable ischemic heart disease and unprotected left main or 3-vessel disease or Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score >22 who underwent PCI after heart team review between 2013 and 2020 were included. Patients were categorized into 3 groups according to heart team recommendations on the basis of appropriate use criteria: (1) PCI-recommended; (2) CABG-eligible but refused CABG (CABG-refusal); and (3) CABG-ineligible. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The study included 3687 patients undergoing PCI (PCI-recommended, n=1718 [46.6%]), CABG-refusal (n=1595 [43.3%]), and CABG-ineligible (n=374 [10.1%]). Clinical and procedural risk increased across the 3 groups, with the highest comorbidity burden in CABG-ineligible patients. Composite events within 1 year after PCI occurred in 55 (4.1%), 91 (7.0%), and 41 (14.8%) of patients in the PCI-recommended, CABG-refusal, and CABG-ineligible groups, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, the risk of the primary composite outcome was significantly higher in the CABG-refusal (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67 [95% CI, 1.08-3.56]; P=0.02) and CABG-ineligible patients (HR, 3.26 [95% CI, 1.28-3.65]; P=0.004) groups compared with the reference PCI-recommended group, driven by increased death and stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular event rates after PCI were significantly higher in patients with multivessel disease who declined or were ineligible for CABG. Our findings provide real-world data to inform shared decision-making discussions.

Do the Few Dictate Care for the Many? Revascularisation Considerations That Go Beyond the Guidelines

The burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is large and growing, commonly presenting with comorbidities and older age. Patients may benefit from coronary revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), yet half of patients with CAD who would benefit from revascularisation fall outside the eligibility criteria of trials to date. As such, the choice of revascularisation procedures varies depending on the CAD anatomy and complexity, surgical risk and comorbidities, the patient's preferences and values, and the treating team's expertise. The recent American guidelines on coronary revascularisation are comprehensive in describing recommendations for PCI, CABG, or conservative management in patients with CAD. However, individual challenging patient presentations cannot be fully captured in guidelines. The aim of this narrative review is to summarise common clinical scenarios that are not sufficiently described by contemporary clinical guidelines and trials in order to inform heart team members and trainees about the nuanced considerations and available evidence to manage such cases. We discuss clinical cases that fall beyond the current guidelines and summarise the relevant evidence evaluating coronary revascularisation for these patients. In addition, we highlight gaps in knowledge based on a lack of research (eg, ineligibility of certain patient populations), underrepresentation in research (eg, underenrollment of female and non-White patients), and the surge in newer minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. We argue that ultimately, evidence-based medicine, patient preference, shared decision making, and effective heart team communications are necessary to best manage complex CAD presentations potentially benefitting from revascularisation with CABG or PCI.

Impacts of the SYNTAX score I, II and SYNTAX score II 2020 on left main revascularization

Patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) with a high SYNTAX score (SS) were excluded from randomized studies that comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We sought to compare PCI and CABG in the real-world practice and investigate the impact of SS I, SS II, and SS II 2020 on clinical outcomes. In total, 292 Patients with LMCAD (173 PCI, 119 CABG) treated between 2017 and 2021 were enrolled. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). The mean SS I was high in both groups (PCI vs. CABG: 31.64 ± 11.45 vs. 32.62 ± 11.75, p = 0.660). The primary outcome occurred in 28 patients (16.2%) in the PCI group and in 19 patients (16.0%) in the CABG group without significant difference [adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI = 0.98 (0.51-1.90), p = 0.97] over the follow-up period (26.9 ± 17.7 months). No significant difference was observed in all-cause mortality (11.6% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.93) or stroke rates (3.5% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.51) between groups. However, PCI was associated with higher MI (4.6% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.05) and revascularization rates (26% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001). Prognostic value of the SS I, SS II and SS II 2020 on the primary outcome was not relevant in the PCI group. Among patients with LMCAD, PCI and CABG did not significantly differ in the composite endpoint of all-cause death, stroke, and MI. These results support the potential expansion of PCI indications in LMCAD management for whom are ineligible for CABG with complex coronary artery disease.

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Evidence-Based Practice

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains a pivotal cornerstone, offering established symptomatic alleviation and prognostic advantages for patients grappling with complex multivessel and left main coronary artery diseases. Despite the lucid guidance laid out by contemporary guidelines regarding the choice between CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a notable hesitation persists among certain patients, characterized by psychological reservations, knowledge gaps, or individual beliefs that sway their inclination toward surgical intervention. This comprehensive review critically synthesizes the prevailing guidelines, modern practices, and outcomes pertaining to CABG surgery, delving into an array of techniques and advancements poised to enhance both short-term and enduring surgical outcomes. The exploration encompasses advances in on-pump and off-pump procedures, conduit selection strategies encompassing the bilateral utilization of internal mammary artery and radial artery conduits, meticulous graft evaluation methodologies, and the panorama of minimally invasive approaches, including those assisted by robotic technology. Furthermore, the review navigates the terrain of hybrid coronary revascularization, shedding light on the pivotal roles of shared decision-making and the heart team in shaping treatment pathways. As a comprehensive compendium, this review not only navigates the intricate landscape of CABG surgery but also aligns it with contemporary practices, envisioning its trajectory within the evolving currents of healthcare dynamics.

Dealing With Nonproportional Hazards in Coronary Revascularisation Studies

The Cox proportional hazards model is one of the most popular statistical tools to model time to event outcomes without the need for specifying the hazards or survival time distributions. The Cox model requires that the ratio of the hazards of the occurrence of the outcome for any 2 individuals remains constant during the entire follow-up. Studies comparing coronary revascularisation strategies, however, might be prone to violations of proportionality by the crossing of the hazard functions over time. Early increases in the risk of cardiovascular outcomes are commonly observed when comparing coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas decreased risk might be observed later during the follow-up. The same is valid for comparisons between invasive vs conservative coronary revascularisation strategies. In these situations, the statistical power of the Cox model is reduced, and hazard ratios might not be an informative summary measure of treatment effect. In this article, we discuss methods to identify and account for nonproportionality. We illustrate the use of these methods in a case study based on reconstructed data from a coronary revascularisation clinical trial. And finally, we review the cardiovascular literature to estimate how the proportionality assumption has been reported in coronary revascularisation studies recently.

Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis

The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) using electronic databases through January 1, 2022. We performed a random-effects meta-regression between repeat revascularization rates after PCI (absolute risk difference [%] between PCI and CABG or OMT) with the relative risks (RR) of mortality. We assessed surrogacy of repeat revascularization for mortality using the coefficient of determination (R2), with threshold of 0.80. In 33 trials (21,735 patients), at median follow-up of 4 (2-7) years, repeat revascularization was higher after PCI than CABG [RR: 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-3.03)], but lower vs OMT [RR: 0.64 (0.46-0.88)]. Overall, meta-regression showed that repeat revascularization rates after PCI had no significant association with all-cause mortality [RR: 1.01 (0.99-1.02); R2=0.10) or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 1.01 (CI: 0.99-1.03); R2=0.09]. In PCI vs CABG (R2=0.0) or PCI vs OMT trials (R2=0.28), repeat revascularization did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (R2=0.0). We observed concordant results for subgroup analyses (enrollment time, follow-up, sample size, risk of bias, stent types, and coronary artery disease), and multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, risk of bias, MI, and follow-up duration. In summary, this meta-regression did not establish repeat revascularization after PCI as a surrogate for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.

A Single Center Initial Experience with Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (RA-MIDCAB)

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive procedures have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing the recovery times while ensuring optimal results and minimizing complications. Regarding the coronary artery surgical revascularization field, the evolution of techniques and technology is permitting new surgical strategies that are increasingly precise and suitable for each patient. We present an initial single center experience with a case series of patients successfully treated with combined robotic harvesting of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft (MIDCAB) for the anastomosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent minimally invasive coronary artery revascularization with the use of two combined techniques at our Institution between January 2021 and October 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting with the described approach. The median cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times were 83 min (76-115) and 38 min (32-58), respectively. The median intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay were 2 days (1-4) and 8 days (6-11), respectively. The procedure's success was achieved in 100% of patients. The 30-day mortality was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering all the limitations related to the small sample, the presented results of a hybrid approach for minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) appears to be encouraging and acceptable. The main advantage of this approach is related to the reduction of postoperative pain and pulmonary complications.

The clinical value and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The clinical value and cost-effectiveness of invasive treatments for patients with coronary artery disease is unclear. Invasive treatments such as coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention are frequently used as a starting treatment, yet they are much more costly than optimal medical therapy. While patients may transition into other treatments over time, the choices of starting treatments are likely important determinants of costs and health outcomes. The aim is to predict by how much costs and health outcomes will change from a decision to use different starting treatments for patients with coronary artery disease in an Asian setting.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness study using a Markov model informed by data from Singapore General Hospital was done. All patients with initial presentations of stable coronary disease and no acute coronary syndromes who received medical treatments and interventional therapies were included. We compare existing practice, where the starting treatment can be medical therapy or stent percutaneous coronary interventions or coronary artery bypass grafting, with alternate starting treatment strategies.

RESULTS

When compared to 'existing practice' a policy of starting 14% of patients with coronary artery bypass grafting and 86% with optimal medical therapy showed savings of $1,743 per patient and 0.23 additional quality adjusted life years. A change to policy nationwide would save $10 million and generate 1,380 quality adjusted life years.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing coronary artery bypass grafting and use of medical therapy in the setting of coronary artery disease is likely to saves costs and improve health outcomes. A definitive study to address the question we investigate would be very difficult to undertake and so using existing data to model the expected outcomes is a useful tool. There are likely to be large and complex barriers to the implementation of any policy change based on the findings of this study.

The Evolving Role of the Multidisciplinary Heart Team in Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has transformed the paradigm of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). With transcatheter aortic valve replacement now commercially approved for AS patients of all surgical risk, clinical decision-making regarding the initial mode of valve replacement (e.g. surgical versus transcatheter) and prosthesis type has become even more complex. The updated American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines on valvular heart disease offer a strong foundation from which to address the nuances of the treatment of AS; however, there remain several clinical scenarios for which evidence and thus definitive societal recommendations are lacking. As such, the heart team continues to play an invaluable role in the management of the AS patient by combining available scientific evidence, expertise across disciplines, and the patient’s preferences to optimize individualized patient care and healthcare resource usage.

A Partially Randomized Patient Preference Trial to Assess the Quality of Life and Patency Rate After Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery-Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Design and Rationale of the MICS-CABG PRPP Trial

Background

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery-coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS-CABG) has emerged as a safe alternative to standard cardiac surgery. However, treatment preferences can decrease the generalizability of RCT results to the clinical population (i.e., reduce external validity) and influence adherence to the treatment protocol and study outcomes (i.e., reduce internal validity). However, this has not yet been properly investigated in randomized trials with consideration of treatment preferences.

Study Design

In this study, patients with a preference will be allocated to treatment strategies accordingly, whereas only those patients without a distinct preference will be randomized. The randomized trial is a 248-patient controlled, randomized, investigator-blinded trial. It is designed to compare whether treatment with MICS-CABG is beneficial in comparison to CABG. This study is aimed to establish the superiority hypothesis for the physical component summary (PCS) accompanied by the non-inferiority hypothesis for overall graft patency. Patients with no treatment preference will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two treatment arms. The primary efficacy endpoints are the PCS score at 30 days after surgery and the overall patency rate of the grafts within 14 days after surgery. Secondary outcome measures include the PCS score and patency rate at different time points. Safety endpoints include major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, complications, bleeding, wound infection, death, etc.

Conclusions

This trial will address essential questions of the efficacy and safety of MICS-CABG. The study will also address the impact of patients' preferences on external validity and internal validity.

External Validation of the FREEDOM Score for Individualized Decision Making Between CABG and PCI

BACKGROUND

Although randomized trials have established that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is, on average, the most effective revascularization strategy compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes and multivessel disease (MVD), individual patients differ in many characteristics that can affect the benefits and harms of treatment. The FREEDOM (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus) score was developed to predict different outcomes with CABG vs PCI on the basis of 8 patient characteristics and the smoking-treatment interaction.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the ability of the 5-year major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) model to predict treatment benefit of CABG vs PCI in the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) and BEST (Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) trials.

METHODS

This study identified 702 patients with diabetes and MVD to mirror the FREEDOM participants. Discrimination was assessed by C-index, and calibration was assessed by calibration plots in the PCI and CABG arms, respectively. The ability of the FREEDOM score to predict treatment benefit of CABG vs PCI was assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, CABG was associated with a lower rate of 5-year MACE compared with PCI (12.4% vs 20.3%; log-rank P = 0.021) irrespective of a history of smoking (P_interaction = 0.975). Both discrimination and calibration were helpful in the PCI arm (C-index: 0.69; slope: 0.96, intercept: -0.24), but moderate in the CABG arm (C-index: 0.61; slope: 0.61; intercept: -0.53). The FREEDOM score showed some heterogeneity of treatment benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The FREEDOM score could identify some heterogeneity of treatment benefit of CABG vs PCI for 5-year MACE. Until further prospective validations are performed, these results should be taken into consideration when using the FREEDOM score in patients with diabetes and MVD. (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery [SYNTAX]; NCT00114972) (Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease [BEST]; NCT00997828) (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus [FREEDOM]; NCT00086450).

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus stenting for patients with chronic kidney disease and complex coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The relative role of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and complex coronary artery disease (CAD) remains debatable due to the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We therefore performed this meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of the two strategies in CKD patients with multivessel and/or left main disease.

Methods

Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched to identify the eligible subgroup analysis of RCTs and propensity-matched registries. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality during the longest follow-up.

Results

Five subgroup analyses of RCTs and six propensity-matched registries involving 26,441 patients were analyzed. Overall, the strategy of CABG was associated with lower risks of long-term mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.93], myocardial infarction (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.62), and repeat revascularization (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16-0.39) compared with PCI in CKD patients with complex CAD. However, CABG was slightly associated with higher risk of stroke than PCI (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.00-1.77). Nonetheless, the higher stroke risk in the CABG group no longer existed during long-term follow-up (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.37-2.25) (>3 years).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis supports the current guideline advising CABG for patients with CKD and complex CAD. At the expense of slightly increased risk of stroke, CABG reduces the incidences of long-term all-cause death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization compared with PCI.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Ten-year all-cause death following percutaneous or surgical revascularization in patients with prior cerebrovascular disease: insights from the SYNTAX Extended Survival study

BACKGROUND

Coronary bypass artery grafting (CABG) has a higher procedural risk of stroke than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but may offer better long-term survival. The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with prior cerebrovascular disease (CEVD) remains unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SYNTAXES study assessed the vital status out to 10 year of patients with three-vessel disease and/or left main coronary artery disease enrolled in the SYNTAX trial. The relative efficacy of PCI vs. CABG in terms of 10 year all-cause death was assessed according to prior CEVD. The primary endpoint was 10 year all-cause death. The status of prior CEVD was available in 1791 (99.5%) patients, of whom 253 patients had prior CEVD. Patients with prior CEVD were older and had more comorbidities (medically treated diabetes, insulin-dependent diabetes, metabolic syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, impaired renal function, and congestive heart failure), compared with those without prior CEVD. Prior CEVD was an independent predictor of 10 year all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.04-1.73; p = 0.021). Patients with prior CEVD had a significantly higher risk of 10 year all-cause death (41.1 vs. 24.1%; HR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.54-2.40; p < 0.001). The risk of 10 year all-cause death was similar between patients receiving PCI or CABG irrespective of the presence of prior CEVD (p-interaction = 0.624).

CONCLUSION

Prior CEVD was associated with a significantly increased risk of 10 year all-cause death which was similar in patients treated with PCI or CABG. These results do not support preferential referral for PCI rather than CABG in patients with prior CEVD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SYNTAX: ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT00114972. SYNTAX Extended Survival: ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT03417050.

Review of Contemporary Techniques for Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularization

Minimally invasive coronary revascularization techniques aim to avoid median sternotomy with its associated complications, while facilitating recovery and maintaining the benefits of surgical revascularization. The 3 most common procedures are minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting, totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass, and hybrid coronary revascularization. For a variety of reasons, including cost and technical difficulty, not many centers are routinely performing minimally invasive coronary revascularization. Nevertheless, many studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of each of these procedures in different clinical contexts. Thus far results have been promising, and with the evolution of procedural techniques, these approaches have the potential to redefine coronary revascularization in the future. This review highlights the current state of minimally invasive coronary revascularization techniques by exploring their benefits, identifying barriers to their adoption, and discussing future potential paradigms.

Determinants of the Downward Trend in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Among Patients With Multivessel Disease and Class-I Indication for Surgery

Introduction

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is the most effective coronary revascularization procedure, and it has been endorsed by many trials and studies over the years. However, due to CABG's immediate adverse effects, patients tend to prefer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary revascularization over it. This article focuses on the recent downtrend in CABG procedures for revascularization among patients for whom it is indicated. This study’s main objective was to identify the factors responsible for the downtrend in patients undergoing CABG despite a clear indication for it in those with multivessel diseases.

Methods

This study was conducted at the Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan, from August 1, 2020, to January 1, 2021. A total of 340 patients with a class-I indication (presence of conditions regarding which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is beneficial, useful, and effective) for CABG were enrolled in the study. Data related to all the variables were collected from patients and hospital records through an adequately designed proforma. For analysis, we applied the chi-square test to elaborate on the data for information and point biserial correlation to rule out the effect of age and weight on CABG’s downward trend.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 58.77 ± 9.54 years; 65.88% were male, and 34.12% were female. Only 17.65% of the patients underwent CABG; 71.47% opted for medical treatment, and 9.41% underwent PCI. Out of the 280 patients who did not undergo CABG, 26.76% had financial issues; 23.82% were high-risk patients and hence refused surgeries by the surgeons; 20.59% of patients were not willing to undergo surgery; 7.94% were on the waiting list, and 3.24% had deranged renal function tests (RFTs).

Conclusions

A limited number of patients underwent revascularization therapy even though they had clear indications for CABG. The high-risk status of patients, patients' unwillingness, and the cost of the procedure were the primary reasons behind the downtrend in CABG procedures among patients with a clear indication for the same.

Prognostic and Practical Validation of ESC/EACTS High Ischemic Risk Definition on Long-Term Thrombotic and Bleeding Events in Contemporary PCI Patients

Aims: The ESC/EACTS myocardial revascularization guidelines recently standardized the definition of patients at high ischemic risk (HIR). However, the ability of ESC/EACTS–HIR criteria to stratify ischemic and bleeding risk in a contemporary real-world East Asian cohort remains unexplored.

Methods: A total of 10,167 consecutive patients undergoing PCI from prospective Fuwai PCI Registry (January 2013 to December 2013) were reviewed. ESC/EACTS–HIR features was defined as having at least one of the eight clinical and angiographic characteristics. The primary ischemic endpoint was target vessel failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or target vessel revascularization [TVR]); bleeding outcome was assessed using the BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. Median follow-up was 29 months.

Results: Compared with non-HIR patients, HIR patients ( n =5,149, 50.6%) were associated with increased risk for target vessel failure (adjusted hazard ratio [HR _adjust ]: 1.48 [1.25–1.74]) and patient-oriented composite outcome (HR _adjust : 1.44 [1.28–1.63]), as well as cardiac death, MI, and TVR. By contrast, the risk of clinically relevant bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (HR _adjust : 0.84 [0.66–1.06]). Greater than or equal to three implanted stents and diabetic patients with diffuse multivessel coronary disease emerged as independent predictors for long-term adverse outcomes. There was no significant interaction between high bleeding risk (HBR) status and clinical outcomes associated with ESC/EACTS–HIR criteria (all P _interaction ＞0.05).

Conclusion: The ESC/EACTS–HIR features identified patients at increased risk of thrombotic events, including cardiac death, but not for clinically relevant bleeding. Importantly, HBR did not modify cardiovascular risk subsequent to patients with ESC/EACTS–HIR features, suggesting its potential clinical applicability in tailoring antithrombotic therapy.

Redevelopment and validation of the SYNTAX score II to individualise decision making between percutaneous and surgical revascularisation in patients with complex coronary artery disease: secondary analysis of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAXES trial with external cohort validation

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials are considered the gold standard for testing the efficacy of novel therapeutic interventions, and typically report the average treatment effect as a summary result. As the result of treatment can vary between patients, basing treatment decisions for individual patients on the overall average treatment effect could be suboptimal. We aimed to develop an individualised decision making tool to select an optimal revascularisation strategy in patients with complex coronary artery disease.

METHODS

The SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study is an investigator-driven extension follow-up of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 85 hospitals across 18 North American and European countries between March, 2005, and April, 2007. Patients with de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) group. The SYNTAXES study ascertained 10-year all-cause deaths. We used Cox regression to develop a clinical prognostic index for predicting death over a 10-year period, which was combined, in a second stage, with assigned treatment (PCI or CABG) and two prespecified effect-modifiers, which were selected on the basis of previous evidence: disease type (three-vessel disease or left main coronary artery disease) and anatomical SYNTAX score. We used similar techniques to develop a model to predict the 5-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal stroke, or non-fatal myocardial infarction) in patients receiving PCI or CABG. We then assessed the ability of these models to predict the risk of death or a major adverse cardiovascular event, and their differences (ie, the estimated benefit of CABG versus PCI by calculating the absolute risk difference between the two strategies) by cross-validation with the SYNTAX trial (n=1800 participants) and external validation in the pooled population (n=3380 participants) of the FREEDOM, BEST, and PRECOMBAT trials. The concordance (C)-index was used to measure discriminative ability, and calibration plots were used to assess the degree of agreement between predictions and observations.

FINDINGS

At cross-validation, the newly developed SYNTAX score II, termed SYNTAX score II 2020, showed a helpful discriminative ability in both treatment groups for predicting 10-year all-cause deaths (C-index=0·73 [95% CI 0·69-0·76] for PCI and 0·73 [0·69-0·76] for CABG) and 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events (C-index=0·65 [0·61-0·69] for PCI and C-index=0·71 [0·67-0·75] for CABG). At external validation, the SYNTAX score II 2020 showed helpful discrimination (C-index=0·67 [0·63-0·70] for PCI and C-index=0·62 [0·58-0·66] for CABG) and good calibration for predicting 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events. The estimated treatment benefit of CABG over PCI varied substantially among patients in the trial population, and the benefit predictions were well calibrated.

INTERPRETATION

The SYNTAX score II 2020 for predicting 10-year deaths and 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events can help to identify individuals who will benefit from either CABG or PCI, thereby supporting heart teams, patients, and their families to select optimal revascularisation strategies.

FUNDING

The German Heart Research Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Patients' Preferences after Recurrent Coronary Narrowing: Discrete Choice Experiments

Fundamento:

Selecionar a estratégia de tratamento ideal para a revascularização coronária é um desafio. Um desfecho crucial a ser considerado no momento dessa escolha é a necessidade de refazer a revascularização, uma vez que ela se torna muito mais frequente após a intervenção coronária percutânea (ICP) do que após a cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio (CRM).

Objetivo:

Pretende-se, com este estudo, trazer reflexões acerca das preferências dos pacientes pelas estratégias de revascularização sob a perspectiva de pacientes que tiveram que refazer a revascularização.

Métodos:

Selecionamos uma amostra de pacientes que haviam sido submetidos à ICP e hospitalizados para refazer a revascularização coronária e elicitamos suas preferências por nova ICP ou CRM. Morte perioperatória, mortalidade a longo prazo, infarto do miocárdio e repetir a revascularização foram utilizados para a construção de cenários a partir da descrição de tratamentos hipotéticos que foram rotulados como ICP ou CRM. A ICP era sempre apresentada como a opção com menor incidência de morte perioperatória e maior necessidade de se refazer o procedimento. O modelo logístico condicional foi empregado para analisar as escolhas dos pacientes, utilizando-se o software R. Valores de p <0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significativos.

Resultados:

Ao todo, 144 pacientes participaram, a maioria dos quais (73,7%) preferiram a CRM à ICP (p < 0,001). Os coeficientes de regressão foram estatisticamente significativos para o rótulo ICP, mortalidade a longo prazo da ICP, morte perioperatória da CRM, mortalidade a longo prazo da CRM e refazer a CRM. O rótulo ICP foi o parâmetro mais importante (p < 0,05).

Conclusão:

A maioria dos pacientes que enfrentam a necessidade de refazer a revascularização coronária rejeitam uma nova ICP, com base em níveis realistas de riscos e benefícios. Incorporar as preferências dos pacientes à estimativa do risco-benefício e às recomendações de tratamento poderia melhorar o cuidado centrado no paciente.

Trends in Reoperative Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for Older Adults in the United States, 1998 to 2017

Background

The likelihood of undergoing reoperative coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is important for older patients who are considering first‐time CABG. Trends in the reoperative CABG for these patients are unknown.

Methods and Results

We used the Medicare fee‐for‐service inpatient claims data of adults undergoing isolated first‐time CABG between 1998 and 2017. The primary outcome was time to first reoperative CABG within 5 years of discharge from the index surgery, treating death as a competing risk. We fitted a Cox regression to model the likelihood of reoperative CABG as a function of patient baseline characteristics. There were 1 666 875 unique patients undergoing first‐time isolated CABG and surviving to hospital discharge. The median (interquartile range) age of patients did not change significantly over time (from 74 [69–78] in 1998 to 73 [69–78] in 2017); the proportion of women decreased from 34.8% to 26.1%. The 5‐year rate of reoperative CABG declined from 0.77% (95% CI, 0.72%–0.82%) in 1998 to 0.23% (95% CI, 0.19%–0.28%) in 2013. The annual proportional decline in the 5‐year rate of reoperative CABG overall was 6.6% (95% CI, 6.0%–7.1%) nationwide, which did not differ across subgroups, except the non‐white non‐black race group that had an annual decline of 8.5% (95% CI, 6.2%–10.7%).

Conclusions

Over a recent 20‐year period, the Medicare fee‐for‐service patients experienced a significant decline in the rate of reoperative CABG. In this cohort of older adults, the rate of declining differed across demographic subgroups.

Patient perspectives on left main stem revascularization strategies, the OPINION-2 study

BACKGROUND

Treatment preferences in patients with left main (LM) stem disease and no prior revascularization are unknown. The objectives of this study were to determine (i) patient-reported importance ratings of particular features related to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, (ii) how these features determine treatment preference, and (iii) how educational and psychosocial background influence this preference.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter study a total of 500 patients without previous revascularization who underwent diagnostic angiography for suspected coronary disease were asked to complete a case-vignette on a (hypothetical) LM stenosis qualifying for both PCI and CABG, in addition to 6 validated questionnaires to assess the influence of psychosocial factors on treatment preference.

RESULTS

Overall, 90% favored PCI over CABG because of the lower bleeding and stroke risk despite a higher likelihood for repeat revascularization. By multivariable regression, the only independent determinant of treatment preference for CABG was lower educational level (14% in low vs. 8% in higher educated patients, OR: 3.22, CI: 1.16-8.95, p=0.025) while psychosocial variables were not associated. Compared to higher educated patients, those with lower educational level suffered more from depression, anxiety, loneliness, and uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients who are informed about risk and benefits of each treatment modality clearly favor PCI over CABG and particularly value lower short-term morbidity while being aware of higher risk of repeat revascularization. Lower educational level was associated with a higher prevalence of psychosomatic phenotypes and a 14% preference for CABG. Educational and psychosocial background matter in the revascularization strategy decision-making process.

Individualizing Revascularization Strategy for Diabetic Patients With Multivessel Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

In patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), the FREEDOM (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease) trial demonstrated that, on average, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for major acute cardiovascular events (MACE) and angina reduction. Nonetheless, multivessel PCI remains a common revascularization strategy in the real world.

OBJECTIVES

To translate the results of FREEDOM to individual patients in clinical practice, risk models of the heterogeneity of treatment benefit were built.

METHODS

Using patient-level data from 1,900 FREEDOM patients, the authors developed models to predict 5-year MACE (all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) and 1-year angina after CABG and PCI using baseline covariates and treatment interactions. Parsimonious models were created to support clinical use. The models were internally validated using bootstrap resampling, and the MACE model was externally validated in a large real-world registry.

RESULTS

The 5-year MACE occurred in 346 (18.2%) patients, and 310 (16.3%) had angina at 1 year. The MACE model included 8 variables and treatment interactions with smoking status (c = 0.67). External validation in stable CAD (c = 0.65) and ACS (c = 0.68) demonstrated comparable performance. The 6-variable angina model included a treatment interaction with SYNTAX score (c = 0.67). PCI was never superior to CABG, and CABG was superior to PCI for MACE in 54.5% of patients and in 100% of patients with history of smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

To help disseminate the results of FREEDOM, the authors created a personalized risk prediction tool for patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD that could be used in shared decision-making for CABG versus PCI by estimating each patient's personal outcomes with both treatments.

Long-term survival after endoscopic vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic vein harvest is the technique of choice in North America, where it constitutes 80% of conduit harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting. The UK has much lower rates, despite demonstrable perioperative benefits. Concerns about patency and long-term survival are often cited as reasons for poor uptake and evidence in the literature thus far has only addressed mid-term outcomes. We sought to identify the long-term survival of patients undergoing endoscopic vein harvest compared with a contemporaneous cohort of open vein harvest.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting at a single institution between 2007 and 2017. All-cause long-term mortality was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 7,527 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (1,029 receiving endoscopic vein harvest) were studied. The groups were well matched for preoperative characteristics, except that there were more patients with triple-vessel disease and good left-ventricular function in the endoscopic vein harvest group. There was no statistically significant difference in the long-term survival (p = 0.23). At five years (median follow-up), survival was 86.1% (95% confidence interval 85.3-87.0) in the open vein harvest group compared with 85.5% (95% confidence interval 82.8-88.2) in the endoscopic vein harvest group.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Endoscopic vein harvest does not affect long-term survival in an unselected population. The contraindications for minimally invasive vein harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting are increasingly diminishing.

PREPARED Study: A Study of Shared Decision-Making for Coronary Artery Disease

Background Guidelines recommend patient engagement in shared decision-making regarding coronary revascularization, but studies demonstrate poor patient understanding of risks, benefits, and alternatives. Effective strategies are needed to integrate informed patient preferences into clinical care, particularly for patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography. Methods and Results We developed a web-based decision aid to educate patients and survey their treatment preferences before angiography. We compared knowledge, attitudes, and preferences of 203 patients with and without use of the decision aid. In a pilot cluster-randomized study, cardiologists were assigned to receive versus not receive patient preferences, with subsequent assessment of treatment decisions. The median age of participants was 64 years, 62% were men, 74% were white, and a similar number had acute presentation (49% non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina) and stable presentation (51% stable angina or atypical symptoms). Most patients preferred treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention compared with either medical therapy alone (63% versus 21%) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (81% versus 7%). The decision aid was associated with improved performance on a 6-item knowledge scale (mean, 2.7 versus 2.2 questions correct; P<0.01) and greater interest in shared decision-making but not an overall change in patient preferences. The pilot cluster-randomized study demonstrated the feasibility of integrating patient preference information into clinical care, although providing preferences to the clinicians did not improve concordance between preference and treatment. Conclusions A web-based decision aid was associated with improved patient knowledge and greater desire to participate in shared decision-making for coronary revascularization. Most patients preferred percutaneous coronary intervention to either medical therapy alone or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Further investigation is needed to determine the impact of patient preferences on clinical decision-making and outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02272062.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Coronary Artery Disease - Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies comparing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported MIDCAB's superiority, but they did not investigate contemporary PCI with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES). We compared clinical outcomes after MIDCAB with previously reported outcomes after PCI with second-generation DES.Methods and Results:We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients treated with MIDCAB. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes after MIDCAB were compared with those for left anterior descending artery disease treated via PCI. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to adjust for between-group differences in baseline characteristics. We analyzed 77 patients treated with MIDCAB and 2,206 treated with PCI. The MIDCAB group was older and had more severe coronary disease and a higher incidence of left ventricular dysfunction. Over a 3-year follow-up, the PCI group had favorable MACCE outcomes. After PSM, there were no between-group differences in MACCE (MIDCAB, 15.6% vs. PCI, 23.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.38-1.68, P=0.548) or TVR (MIDCAB, 2.6% vs. PCI, 5.2%; HR, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.10-3.09, P=0.509).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes were similar between MIDCAB and PCI using second-generation DES over 3 years of follow-up.

Implications of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention on disease progression and the resulting changes to the physiology and pathology of the native coronary arteries

Myocardial revascularization can be achieved through 2 different methods: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Clinical trials comparing PCI and CABG generally use the composite end points of death, stroke, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization to determine superiority. Other effects of these interventions, including the preservation of normal coronary physiology, the response of the coronary tree to stressors and the response of the vessel wall to the revascularization intervention, are not routinely considered, but these may have significant implications for patients in the medium and long term. For PCI, relatively small differences in clinical outcomes have been reported between bare metal and drug-eluting stents, and the latter seems to have inconsistent and somewhat unpredictable effects on the vascular biology of the coronary arteries. In coronary bypass, the use of arterial conduits is associated with superior clinical outcomes, better long-term patency and the preservation of essentially normal coronary function after intervention. This review assembles the clinical, physiological, angiographic and pathological literature currently available and attempts to provide a more complete picture of the effects of CABG and PCI on coronary arteries.

Patients' preferences for coronary revascularization: a systematic review

AIMS

Current recommendations regarding the best treatment option for coronary revascularization are usually based on composite outcomes that were not selected or weighed with patients thence they may fail in representing patients' preferences adequately. This systematic review aimed to appraise existing literature surrounding stated preference (SP) regarding coronary revascularization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Studies related to SP regarding coronary revascularization were searched on Medline, Embase and Lilacs databases. Two reviewers screened all titles independently, and consensus resolved any disagreements. Of 735 total citations, six studies were included and qualitatively synthesized. Notably, the attributes most often cited in these studies coincided with those already used in clinical trials (death, myocardial infarction, stroke and redo revascularization). Half of the studies analyzed the use of composite endpoints and showed the necessity to review this practice since the attributes are weighed differently, and there is a disagreement between patients and physicians. Also, a large variety of methods were used to elicitate and value the attributes such as rating, ranking, standard gamble, willingness to pay, and discrete choice experiments.

CONCLUSION

Despite a large number of studies comparing revascularization treatment efficacy, there are just a few focusing on patients' preferences. The selection of outcomes to be considered in the trade-off between treatment options and how to weigh them properly, taking into consideration patients' preferences, need to be explored in future trials.

Patient-Centered Decision-Making of Revascularization Strategy for Left Main or Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Patient preference plays an important role in daily practice; however, its implication has not been well investigated regarding treatment strategy for complex coronary artery disease. We prospectively evaluated a trend of patient-centered decision-making of revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel or unprotected left main coronary artery disease. A standardized protocol that favors coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) as the primary treatment of choice, rather than percutaneous coronary intervention, was adopted. According to the protocol, patients decided whether or not they received CABG. Among the 763 consecutively enrolled patients, 293 patients (38%) consented to receive CABG. Fifty-six percent of patients with a high Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score chose CABG. SYNTAX score was independently correlated with consent to receive CABG in each patient SYNTAX score stratum. In-stent restenosis was an independent predictor of choosing CABG in patients with low and intermediate SYNTAX scores. Unprotected left main coronary artery disease was negatively correlated with the decision to choose CABG in patients with intermediate SYNTAX score. Reasons for declining CABG included refusal of open-heart surgery in 318 patients (68%), mild presentation of angina symptoms in 132 patients (28%), low self-confidence to expect long-term survival in 120 patients (26%), and economic factors in 10 patients (2%). Short-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in about 1% of patients without significant differences between the 2 groups. In conclusion, despite the preferred use of the CABG protocol, more than half of the patients declined CABG. Patient-centered decision-making as well as heart team approach should be considered in real-world practice situations.

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS)-CABG is a technique that at its core has patient comfort, early return to routine activities, meeting patient expectations for less invasive options, and maintaining the highest possible standards of care and outcomes. The technique requires not only surgical dexterity but also integration of significant technological advancements in patient care. At a time when percutaneous interventions are often prescribed on the pretext of increased patient comfort and demand, minimally invasive myocardial revascularization becomes even more relevant. Minimally invasive myocardial revascularization is ever evolving and encompasses both small-incision open techniques as well as endoscopic-assisted procedures. The success of the procedure depends not only on the learning curve and familiarity with the technology but also on appropriate patient selection. Mere feasibility of the technique is not sufficient, and the results have to be comparable with the long-established techniques of conventional coronary artery bypass grafting both in terms of early morbidity and mortality as well as long-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss patient selection and technical aspects of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. We also provide an evidence-based comparison to early and long-term outcomes with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. Finally, we review the uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive revascularization in the Indian subcontinent.

A review of hybrid coronary revascularization

Purpose

Hybrid coronary revascularization is an emerging treatment strategy for coronary artery disease. We will review the reasons for the development of this strategy, describe surgical techniques, and review outcomes. Finally, we will discuss the future of hybrid revascularization and explain why it will grow as a treatment modality.

Methods

For this review, we conducted an unstructured review of the literature for articles related to hybrid coronary revascularization, bypass surgery, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

Results

Hybrid coronary revascularization has been shown in large series to have excellent results. These include fast recovery time, low mortality and rates of complications, and excellent surgical graft patency. There may be increased need for revascularization over conventional bypass surgery.

Conclusions

The combination improved surgical techniques including a robotic surgery platform, as well as the ever-improving efficacy and durability of coronary stents have made hybrid coronary revascularization an attractive option for many patients. It offers a minimally invasive approach to surgery while avoiding the poor patency of saphenous vein grafts. In appropriately selected patients, this may be an ideal treatment strategy that minimizes risks and maximizes short- and long-term benefits.

Clinical Trial Design for Investigational Cardio-Regenerative Therapy

Human trials of cardio-regenerative biologic therapies are being performed worldwide to address a growing, unmet need for durable treatments of cardiovascular disease. A well-constructed clinical trial design for these novel therapies requires careful attention to defining a clear hypothesis, a patient population, and anticipated outcomes. The scope of screening, method of randomization, blinding approach, data monitoring, and statistical analysis plan are the foundational elements that must be addressed in any clinical trial. Although the experience of human trials involving extracellular matrix constructs for cardiovascular disease treatment is limited, numerous lessons have been learned in the field of cell therapy that are translatable across all biologic treatment options. Future progress in this field may include testing combinations of cells, gene-transfer agents, and matrix and identifying treatment responders versus nonresponders.

Are component endpoints equal? A preference study into the practice of composite endpoints in clinical trials

Objectives

To examine patients’ perspectives regarding composite endpoints and the utility patients put on possible adverse outcomes of revascularization procedures.

Design

In the PRECORE study, a stated preference elicitation method Best‐Worst Scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for 8 component endpoints (CEs): need for redo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 1 year, minor stroke with symptoms <24 hours, minor myocardial infarction (MI) with symptoms <3 months, recurrent angina pectoris, need for redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) within 1 year, major MI causing permanent disability, major stroke causing permanent disability and death within 24 hours.

Setting

A tertiary PCI/CABG centre.

Participants

One hundred and sixty patients with coronary artery disease who underwent PCI or CABG.

Main outcome measures

Importance weights (IWs).

Results

Patients considered need for redo PCI within 1 year (IW: 0.008), minor stroke with symptoms <24 hours (IW: 0.017), minor MI with symptoms <3 months (IW: 0.027), need for redo CABG within 1 year (IW: 0.119), recurrent angina pectoris (IW: 0.300) and major MI causing permanent disability (IW: 0.726) less severe than death within 24 hours (IW: 1.000). Major stroke causing permanent disability was considered worse than death within 24 hours (IW: 1.209). Ranking of CEs and the relative values attributed to the CEs differed among subgroups based on gender, age and educational level.

Conclusion

Patients attribute different weight to individual CEs. This has significant implications for the interpretation of clinical trial data.

Patients' preferences for coronary bypass grafting or staged percutaneous coronary intervention in multi-vessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The decision for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (mCAD) is currently made by a heart-team approach. Patients' preference is less well investigated.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with prior CABG and at least 2 PCI procedures were interviewed whether they would elect bypass surgery or staged PCI in case of a hypothetical scenario in which they had mCAD and CABG or PCI will equally improve symptoms and survival.

RESULTS

A total 213 patients were surveyed. About 21 (10%) patients had multiple CABG, and mean number of PCI per patient was 4.0 ± 2.7. Complications during CABG were reported in 19.7% and in 14% after PCI, respectively. About 15% experienced complications after both CABG and PCI, and 51% had no complications at all. Mean symptom-free period was 5.2 (following CABG) vs 1.8 years (following PCI); P<.001. Duration of recovery was significant shorter after PCI (mean 9.2 ± 1.2 vs 136.4 ± 57.9 days; P<.01). Based on their personal experience with both procedures, 15% of the participants elected CABG in the hypothetical scenario and 67% choose staged PCI, 18% were equally happy with either. More participants preferred PCI when age was ≥70, complications following CABG occurred, and when undergoing CABG first. Gender, number of CABG or PCI procedures per patient, and complications following PCI did not affect participants' preference.

CONCLUSIONS

In our hypothetical scenario, the majority of participants preferred staged PCI over CABG. Preferences were related to age, complications following CABG, and whether CABG was performed first.

A case-vignette based assessment of patient's perspective on coronary revascularization strategies, the OPINION study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Significant left main (LM) stem disease is potentially life-threatening and mandates revascularization. This study aimed to assess how patients rate the importance of particular features of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), how this determines their preference for a particular treatment strategy, and whether particular personality characteristics influence this preference.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In total, 1145 patients who visited the outpatient clinic of the Erasmus Medical Center for stable coronary artery disease were asked to complete a case vignette-questionnaire on a hypothetical significant LM stenosis amenable to PCI or CABG. To assess the individual's personality disposition and general distress level, each patient had to complete a set of 3 standardized, validated questionnaires with satisfactory psychometric properties. Overall 89% of patients preferred PCI to CABG. PCI was the preferred strategy despite a higher risk for repeat revascularization and need for more medication. Remarkably, the fact that a risk for repeat revascularization is more common in the PCI group is less important for the patients who opt for PCI. Risk for stroke and bleeding were the most important arguments to opt for PCI over CABG. Type D personality, depression, and anxiety were all associated with a relatively higher preference for CABG as revascularization strategy.

CONCLUSION

Overall, when given the choice patients seem to have a clear preference for PCI over CABG and consider stroke and bleeding important procedure-related complications. Patients with Type D personality, depression, or anxiety favor CABG.

Outcome and selection of revascularization strategy in left main coronary artery stenosis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate clinical outcome in unselected real-life patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis and determine factors associated with selection of revascularization strategy.

DESIGN

Consecutive patients with ULMCA stenosis at our institution in 2009-2013 (n = 308) were retrospectively analyzed with propensity score adjusted Cox proportional hazards models for outcome. Baseline characteristics in relation to selection of revascularization strategy were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Patients that underwent PCI (n = 94) had a higher risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; adjusted HR 2.13 [95% CI 1.08-4.19]) than patients that had CABG surgery but there was no difference in the combination of death and MI (adjusted HR 1.17 [95% CI 0.50-2.75]). Later year of index angiography, age, Euroscore II and angiographer favoring PCI was associated with PCI as revascularization strategy. Higher SYNTAX score, higher systolic blood pressure and angiographer favoring CABG was associated with CABG.

CONCLUSIONS

In consecutive patients with ULMCA stenosis PCI is associated with higher MACCE rates than CABG but there is no difference in death and MI. Later year of index angiography, higher age, lower systolic blood pressure, higher predicted per-procedural surgical risk, less complex coronary anatomy and angiographer favoring PCI increased the probability of revascularization with PCI instead of CABG.

Patient and physician preferences for attributes of coronary revascularization

BACKGROUND

Patients with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) may face important decisions regarding treatment options, with the "right choice" depending on the relative weights of risks and benefits. Studies performed as discrete choice experiments are used to estimate these weights, and attribute selection is an essential step in the design of these studies. Attributes not included in the design cannot be analyzed. In this study, we aimed to elicit, rank, and rate attributes that may be considered important to patients and physicians who must choose between angioplasty and surgery for coronary revascularization.

METHODS

The elicitation process involved performing a systematic review to search for attributes cited in declared preference studies in addition to face-to-face interviews with cardiologists and experts. The interviews were audio-recorded in digital format, and the collected data were transcribed and searched to identify new attributes. The criterion used to finish the data collection process was sampling saturation.

RESULTS

A systematic review resulted in the selection of the following 14 attributes: atrial fibrillation, heart failure, incision scar, length of stay, long-term survival, myocardial infarction, periprocedural death, postoperative infection, postprocedural angina, pseudoaneurysm, renal failure, repeat coronary artery bypass grafting, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, and stroke. The interviews added no new attributes. After rating, we identified significant differences in the values that patients and cardiologists placed on renal insufficiency (p<0.001), periprocedural death (p<0.001), and long-term survival (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Decisions regarding the best treatment option for patients with CAD should be made based on differences in risk and the patient's preference regarding the most relevant endpoints. We elicited, ranked, and rated 14 attributes related to CAD treatment options. This list of attributes may help researchers who seek to perform future preference studies of CAD treatment options.

Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences

BACKGROUND

Identifying scientific literature addressing patients' views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence.

METHODS

We assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search's precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR).

RESULTS

We assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: "Patient Preferences and Decision Making" and "Health State Utilities Values". When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50.

CONCLUSIONS

This search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients' views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations.

Doctor-patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment

We conduct a framed field experiment among patients and doctors to test whether the two groups have similar risk and time preferences. We elicit risk and time preferences using multiple price list tests and their adaptations to the healthcare context. Risk and time preferences are compared in terms of switching points in the tests and the structurally estimated behavioural parameters. We find that doctors and patients significantly differ in their time preferences: doctors discount future outcomes less heavily than patients. We find no evidence that doctors and patients systematically differ in their risk preferences in the healthcare domain.

Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background:

Multiple studies have compared coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for coronary revascularization. There is considerable evidence that adherence to medical therapy can affect the outcomes of therapeutic interventions. However, the long-term influence of compliance with recommended medical therapy on the comparative outcomes of CABG versus PCI remains to be defined.

Methods:

All non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing coronary revascularization in an 8-hospital network were followed for up to 8 years to determine medication history and major adverse cardiac events: all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and reintervention. All mortalities were checked against the Social Security Death Index. Survival curves were derived with Kaplan-Meier methods; hazard ratios were calculated with the Cox proportional hazard model; and propensity score matching was used to account for differences in patient selection.

Results:

Among the 973 CABG and 2255 PCI patients, Kaplan-Meier major adverse cardiac event–free survival curves demonstrated a significant benefit for antiplatelet, lipid-lowering, and β-blocker therapy in both the CABG and PCI groups ( P =0.001 for all 3 medications). Cox regression identified compliance with optimal medical therapy as a more powerful predictor of major adverse cardiac event–free survival than choice of therapy (hazard ratio for noncompliance=2.79; 95% confidence limits, 2.19–3.54; P <0.001; hazard ratio for PCI versus CABG=1.68, 95% confidence limits, 138–2.04; P <0.001). In propensity-matched patients, CABG outcomes were superior to PCI outcomes in patients nonadherent to optimal medical therapy ( P =0.001) but were not different in patients adherent to optimal medical therapy ( P =0.574).

Conclusions:

Regardless of coronary revascularization strategy, medication adherence has a dramatic effect on long-term outcome. Among comparable patients who adhere to optimal medical therapy, outcomes of PCI and CABG may not differ; however, among nonadherent patients, CABG affords better major adverse cardiac event–free survival. Therefore, patient compliance with medical therapy may inform clinical decision making and should be incorporated into all future comparative studies of comparative coronary revascularization strategies.

Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease: a combined perspective from an interventional cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon

It is now half a century since the start of coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) with the first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following just over a decade later. The relative merits of PCI vs. CABG for stable coronary artery disease (stable-CAD) have continued to be debated ever since and have been the focus of around 20 randomized trials and numerous registry studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The aim of this review is to identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and uncertainties in the role of PCI and CABG in patients with stable-CAD.

Clinical outcomes of treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing index revascularization in Ontario

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention using contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with chronic kidney disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A population-based study was performed using the Cardiac Care Network, a provincial registry of all patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in Ontario, to evaluate patients treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using DES or CABG between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2011. Chronic kidney disease was defined as creatinine clearance <60 mL/min. A total of 1786 propensity-matched patients from 4006 patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing index revascularization for multivessel disease with either DES or isolated CABG (n=893 each group) were analyzed. Baseline and procedural characteristics between percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG groups were well-balanced, including urgent revascularization priority, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular function, and 3-vessel disease. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year Kaplan-Meier survival analyses in propensity-matched patients favored CABG (93.2% versus 89.3%; 86.6% versus 80.3%; 80.8% versus 71.5%, respectively; P<0.001). The CABG cohort had greater 1-, 2-, and 3-year freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (89.4% versus 71.2%; 81.9% versus 60.5%; 75.2% versus 51.8%, respectively; P<0.001). Cox regression analysis identified DES use to be associated with greater hazard for late mortality (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.90) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (2.62; 2.28-3.01; all P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large provincial registry, CABG was associated with improved early and late clinical outcomes when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention using DES in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing index revascularization.