Mortality after multivessel revascularisation involving the proximal left anterior descending artery

Objective

We sought to investigate whether long-term clinical outcomes differ following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with three-vessel disease (3VD) and lesions in the proximal left anterior descending artery (P-LAD).

Methods

This post-hoc analysis of the Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) Extended Survival study included patients with 3VD who were classified according to the presence or absence of lesions located in the P-LAD. Ten-year all-cause death and 5-year major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were assessed.

Results

Among 1088 patients with 3VD, 559 (51.4%) had involvement of P-LAD and their 10-year mortality was numerically higher following PCI versus CABG (28.9% vs 21.9%; HR: 1.39, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.95). Although patients without P-LAD lesions had significantly higher 10-year mortality following PCI compared with CABG, there was no evidence of a treatment-by-subgroup interaction (28.8% vs 20.2%; HR: 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.09, p_interaction=0.837). The incidence of MACCE at 5 years was significantly higher with PCI than CABG, irrespective of involvement of P-LAD (with P-LAD: HR: 1.86, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.55; without P-LAD: HR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.12; p_interaction=0.408). Individualised assessment using the SYNTAX Score II 2020 established that a quarter of patients with P-LAD lesions had significantly higher mortality with PCI than CABG, whereas in the remaining three-quarters CABG had similar mortality.

Conclusions

Among patients with 3VD, the presence or absence of a P-LAD lesion was not associated with any treatment effect on long-term outcomes following PCI or CABG.

Trial registration number

SYNTAXES: NCT03417050; SYNTAX: NCT00114972.

The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

The question of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains among the most important questions in the treatment of coronary artery disease. The leading North American and European societies largely agree on the current guidelines for the revascularization of unprotected left-main disease (ULMD) and multivessel disease (MVD) which are largely supported by the outcomes of several large randomized trials including SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL. While these trials are of the highest quality, currently available, they suffer several limitations, including the use of bare metal and/or first-generation drug-eluting stents in early trials and lack of updated surgical outcomes data. The objective of this review is to briefly discuss these key early trials, as well as explore contemporary studies, to provide insight on the current state of coronary revascularization. Evidence suggests that in ULMD and MVD, there are similar mortality rates for CABG and PCI but PCI is associated with fewer "early" strokes, whereas CABG is associated with fewer "late" strokes, myocardial infarctions, and lower need for repeat revascularization. Additionally, studies suggest that CABG remains superior to PCI in patients with intermediate/high SYNTAX scores and in MVD with concomitant proximal left anterior descending (pLAD) artery stenosis. Despite the preceding research and its basis for our current guidelines, there remains significant variation in care that has yet to be quantified. Emerging studies evaluating second-generation drug-eluting stents, specific lesion anatomy, and minimally invasive and hybrid approaches to CABG may lend itself to more individualized patient care.

Network meta-analysis of treatment strategies in patients with coronary artery disease and low left ventricular ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

The optimal treatment strategy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains controversial. Herein, we conducted a network meta-analysis comparing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with CAD and low LVEF.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through March, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing CABG, PCI, and OMT. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) of the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of three RCTs and 10 PSM trials were identified, yielding a total of 18,855 patients with CAD with low EF who were treated with CABG (n = 9241), PCI (n = 8771), or OMT (n = 1003). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with CABG compared with those with PCI or OMT (HR [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.72 [0.62-0.82], p < .001, HR [95% CI] = 0.65 [0.51-0.82], p = .004, respectively), while no difference was observed between PCI and OMT. The rates of MI were significantly lower in patients treated with CABG compared to those treated with PCI or OMT. However, the subgroup analysis by limiting the PCI group to patients who received drug-eluting stent (DES) showed similar all-cause mortality between CABG and PCI, while both CABG and PCI were associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with OMT.

CONCLUION

The present study demonstrated that CABG was the appropriate treatment strategy in patients with CAD and low LVEF. Further long-term trials were warranted to investigate outcomes of PCI with DES compared with CABG.