Short-term and long-term outcomes of revascularization interventions for patients with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: a meta-analysis

Revascularization in Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier Reconstructed Individual Patient Data

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease is a common etiology of ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), for which the optimal revascularization strategy remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) results in greater survival advantage in patients with LVSD.

METHODS

A study-level (SLMA) and reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis (rIPDMA) from Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves were performed. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane was conducted for observational and randomized studies published after 2010 that compared PCI to CABG in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at longest follow-up. The secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, repeat revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at longest follow-up.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (11 observational, three randomized, 13,063 patients) were eligible for SLMA. Seven contained digitizable KM curves from which individual patient data could be reconstructed. Study-level analysis found PCI associated with increased all-cause mortality (Hazard Ratio 1.41 [95% Confidence Interval 1.18-1.69]), MI (2.10 [1.62-2.72]), repeat revascularization (2.39 [1.37-4.17]) and MACCE (1.58 [1.23-2.03]), without significant differences in stroke (0.86 [0.39-1.92]) or cardiovascular mortality (1.42 [0.78-2.59]). In the rIPDMA, PCI resulted in increased all-cause mortality (1.57 [1.34-1.87]) and repeat revascularization (3.63 [3.12-4.21]) but overall lower risk of stroke (0.62 [0.39-0.99]) due to fewer events during initial follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ischemic LVSD, PCI was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and repeat revascularization than CABG but lower risk of short-term stroke.

Clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and treatment of the chronic heart failure

Chronic heart failure continues to be one of the main causes of impairment in the functioning and quality of life of people who suffer from it, as well as one of the main causes of mortality in our country and around the world. Mexico has a high prevalence of risk factors for developing heart failure, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity, which makes it essential to have an evidence-based document that provides recommendations to health professionals involved in the diagnosis and treatment of these patients. This document establishes the clinical practice guide (CPG) prepared at the initiative of the Mexican Society of Cardiology (SMC) in collaboration with the Iberic American Agency for the Development and Evaluation of Health Technologies, with the purpose of establishing recommendations based on the best available evidence and agreed upon by an interdisciplinary group of experts. This document complies with international quality standards, such as those described by the US Institute of Medicine (IOM), the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), the Intercollegiate Network for Scottish Guideline Development (SIGN) and the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N). The Guideline Development Group was integrated in a multi-collaborative and interdisciplinary manner with the support of methodologists with experience in systematic literature reviews and the development of CPG. A modified Delphi panel methodology was developed and conducted to achieve an adequate level of consensus in each of the recommendations contained in this CPG. We hope that this document contributes to better clinical decision making and becomes a reference point for clinicians who manage patients with chronic heart failure in all their clinical stages and in this way, we improve the quality of clinical care, improve their quality of life and reducing its complications.

Myocardial Scar and Revascularization on Mortality in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (from the Late Gadolinium Enhancement Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study)

Myocardial viability test to guide revascularization remains uncertain in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. We evaluated the different impacts of revascularization on cardiac mortality according to the extent of myocardial scar assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 404 consecutive patients with significant coronary artery disease and an ejection fraction ≤35% were assessed by LGE-CMR before revascularization. Of them, 306 patients underwent revascularization and 98 patients received medical treatment alone. The primary outcome was cardiac death. During a median follow-up of 6.3 years, cardiac death occurred in 158 patients (39.1%). Revascularization was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiac death than medical treatment alone in the overall population (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.45, p <0.001). There was a significant interaction between the number of segments with >75% transmural LGE and revascularization on the risk of cardiac death (p = 0.037 for interaction). In patients with limited myocardial scar (<6 segments with >75% transmural LGE, n = 354), revascularization had a significantly lower risk of cardiac death than medical treatment alone (aHR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.37, p <0.001); in patients with extensive myocardial scar (≥6 segments with >75% transmural LGE, n = 50), there was no significant difference between revascularization and medical treatment alone regarding the risk of cardiac death (aHR 1.33, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.80, p = 0.60). In conclusion, the assessment of myocardial scar by LGE-CMR may be helpful in the decision-making process for revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on outcomes after left main revascularization: g-LM Registry

AIMS

The impact of left ventricular dysfunction on clinical outcomes following revascularization is not well established in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCA). In this study, we evaluated the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on clinical outcomes of patients with ULMCA requiring revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

METHODS

The details of the design, methods, end points, and relevant definitions are outlined in the Gulf Left Main Registry: a retrospective, observational study conducted between January 2015 and December 2019 across 14 centres in 3 Gulf countries. In this study, the data on patients with ULMCA who underwent revascularization through PCI or CABG were stratified by LVEF into three main subgroups; low (l-LVEF <40%), mid-range (m-LVEF 40-49%), and preserved (p-LVEF ≥50%). Primary outcomes were hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and mortality and follow-up MACCE and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 2137 patients were included; 1221 underwent PCI and 916 had CABG. During hospitalization, MACCE was significantly higher in patients with l-LVEF [(10.10%), P = 0.005] and m-LVEF [(10.80%), P = 0.009], whereas total mortality was higher in patients with m-LVEF [(7.40%), P = 0.009] and p-LVEF [(7.10%), P = 0.045] who underwent CABG. There was no mortality difference between groups in patients with l-LVEF. At a median follow-up of 15 months, there was no difference in MACCE and total mortality between patients who underwent CABG or PCI with p-LVEF and m-LVEF.

CONCLUSION

CABG was associated with higher in-hospital events. Hospital mortality in patients with l-LVEF was comparable between CABG and PCI. At 15 months' follow-up, PCI could have an advantage in decreasing MACCE in patients with l-LVEF.

The Impact of Complete Revascularization in Symptomatic Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction between Coronary Artery Bypass Graft and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Objective

The study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between the patients receiving coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the patients with symptomatic severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Between February 2007 and February 2020, a total of 745 patients who received coronary artery angiography for reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% and symptomatic New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class ≥ 3 were recruited. The patients (N = 236) who were diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy or valvular heart disease without coronary artery stenosis, those with prior history of CABG or valvular surgery (N = 59), those who presented ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI), those with a CAD and SYNTAX score of  ≦ 22 (N = 175), those who received emergent CABG for coronary perforation (N = 3), and those who had NYHA class ≦ 2 (N = 65) were excluded. Finally, 116 patients with reduced LVEF and those who had a SYNTAX score >22, who received CABG (N = 47) and PCI (N = 69), were recruited for this study.

Results

There was no significant difference in the incidence values of in-hospital course and those of in-hospital mortality, acute kidney injury, and postprocedural hemodialysis. There was no significant difference in the 1-yearfollow-up of recurrent MI, revascularization, or stroke between the groups. The 1-year heart failure (HF) hospitalization rate was significantly lower in the CABG group than in all patients of the PCI group (13.2% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.035); however, there was no significant difference in the same variable between the CABG group and the complete revascularization subgroup (13.2% vs. 28.2%; p = 0.160). The revascularization index (RI) was significantly higher in the CABG group than in all patients of the PCI group or complete revascularization subgroup (0.93 ± 0.12 vs. 0.71 ± 0.25; p < 0.001) and (0.93 ± 0.12 vs. 0.86 ± 0.13; p = 0.019). The 3-year HF hospitalization rate was significantly lower in the CABG group than in all patients of the PCI group (16.2% vs. 42.2%; p = 0.008); however, there was no difference in the same variable between the CABG group and the complete revascularization subgroup (16.2% vs. 35.1%; p = 0.109).

Conclusions

In patients with symptomatic (NYHA class ≥ 3) severe LV dysfunction and CAD, CABG brought less HF admission when compared to patients in the PCI group, but this did not differ when compared to the complete revascularization subgroup. Therefore, an extensive revascularization, achieved by CABG or PCI, is associated with a lower HF hospitalization rate during the 3-yearfollow-up period in such populations.

Outcomes of Emergent Isolated Coronary Bypass Grafting in Heart Failure Patients

Patients with previously diagnosed HF are at greater risk for subsequent morbidity and mortality when hospitalized for an Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). The purpose of our study was to describe the time trend of the incidence of emergent CABG in patients with and without HF, the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and the risk factors for mortality of surgical revascularization in the short and medium term. This was a single-center retrospective observational study of patients who underwent isolated emergency CABG from January 2009 to January 2020. A propensity-score matching analysis yielded two comparable groups (n = 430) of patients without (n = 215) and with (n = 215) heart failure. In-hospital mortality did not differ in the two groups (2.8%; p > 0.9); the patients with heart failure presented more frequently with cardiogenic shock, and there was an association with mortality and mechanical circulatory support (OR 16.7−95% CI 3.31−140; p = 0.002) and postoperative acute renal failure (OR 15.9−95% CI 0.66−203; p = 0.036). In the early- and mid-term, heart failure and NSTEMI were associated with mortality (HR 3.47−95% CI 1.15−10.5; p = 0.028), along with age (HR 1.28−95% CI 1.21−1.36; p < 0.001). Surgical revascularization offers an excellent solution for patients with acute coronary syndrome, leading to a good immediate prognosis even in those with chronic heart failure.

Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Brings Better Benefits to Heart Failure Hospitalization for Patients with Severe Coronary Artery Disease and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Objectives: We compared the outcomes between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for revascularization in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) and severe coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: Between February 2006 and February 2020, a total of 797 patients received coronary angiograms due to left ventricular EF ≤ 40% at our hospital. After excluding diagnoses of dilated cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease, prior CABG, acute ST-segment myocardial infarction, and CAD with low Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (≤22), 181 patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) with SYNTAX score >22 underwent CABG or PCI for revascularization. Vascular characteristics as well as echocardiographic data were compared between CABG (n = 58) and PCI (n = 123) groups. Results: A younger age (62 ± 9.0 vs. 66 ± 12.1; p = 0.016), higher new EuroSCORE II (8.6 ± 7.3 vs. 3.2 ± 2.0; p < 0.001), and higher SYNTAX score (40.5 ± 9.8 vs. 35.4 ± 8.3; p < 0.001) were noted in the CABG group compared to those in the PCI group. The CABG group had a significantly higher cardiovascular mortality rate at 1-year (19.6% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.005) and 3-year (25.0% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.027) follow-ups but a lower incidence of heart failure (HF) hospitalization at 1-year (11.1% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.023) and 3-year (3.6% vs. 42.5%, p = 0.001) follow-ups compared to those of the PCI group. Conclusions: Compared with PCI, revascularization with CABG was related to a lower incidence of HF hospitalization but a worse survival outcome in patients with severe CAD and reduced EF. CABG-associated reduction in HF hospitalization was more notable when SYNTAX score ≥33.

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.