Comparison of five-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with left ventricular ejection fractions≤50% versus >50% (from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2)

Comparison of mid-term mortality after surgical, supported or unsupported percutaneous revascularization in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction: A direct and network meta-analysis of adjusted observational studies and randomized-controlled

INTRODUCTION

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains to be elucidated. The aim of this paper is to compare the mid-term mortality rate among patients with severely reduced ejection fraction (EF) and complex coronary artery disease who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Impella support, or without.

METHODS

Randomized control trials and propensity-adjusted observational studies including patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and severe EF reduction undergoing revascularization were selected. Different revascularization strategies (CABG, supported PCI, and PCI without Impella) were compared in pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was mid-term mortality (within the first year after revascularization).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, mostly observational (17,841 patients; 6779 patients treated with CABG, 8478 treated with PCI without Impella, and 2584 treated with Impella-supported PCI) were included in this analysis. The median age was 67.8 years (IQR 65-70.1), 21.2% (IQR 16.4-26%) of patients were female sex, and a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors was noted across the entire population. At pairwise analysis, CABG and PCI without Impella showed similar one-year all-cause mortality (10.6% [IQR 7.5-12.6%] vs 12% [IQR 8.4-11.5%]) RR 0.85 CI 0.67-1.09, while supported PCI reduced one-year all-cause mortality compared to PCI without Impella (9.4% [IQR 5.7-12.5%] vs 10.6% [IQR 8.9-10.7%]) RR 0.77 CI 0.6-0.89. At network meta-analysis, supported PCI showed better results (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.94) compared to CABG.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found that supported PCI may have a benefit over standard PCI in patients in direct comparison, and over CABG from indirect comparison, and with HFrEF undergoing revascularization. Further RCTs are needed to confirm this result. (PROSPERO CRD42023425667).

Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has been in practice for many decades, and it is one of the most commonly performed cardiac surgeries worldwide. While there are several studies reporting data on perioperative outcomes following CABG in developed countries, there is a staggering paucity of data and evidence reporting the outcomes in developing areas such as Africa. Thus, it is important to study the practice and outcome of CABG in Africa to establish its clinical efficacy and safety in this region and identify factors that might be limiting its practice. The overall aim of this study is to identify all relevant clinical data on CABG in Africa and report on the perioperative outcomes and practice of CABG in the African population. Electronic search was performed using three online databases, PubMed, African Journal Online, and Research Gate, from inception to June 2023. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline was utilised for this study. Relevant studies fulfilling predefined eligibility criteria were included in the study. Intraoperative details, such as the number of grafts performed, operative, bypass, and cross-clamp time, were reported. The primary endpoint assessed were early mortality and overall mortality. The secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, and postoperative complications, such as renal impairment, atrial fibrillation, and surgical site infection. The data were pooled together and meta-analyzed using a random effect model for proportions and mean for meta-analysis with R software (version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16); R Development Core Team, Vienna, Austria). This systematic review identified 42 studies that fulfilled the study eligibility criteria, including 21 randomised controlled trials, 20 observational studies, and one cross-sectional study. Only four out of the 54 countries in Africa had studies carried out that met the criteria for this review; they included Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa, with a majority from Egypt. Meta-analysis reported a pooled early mortality and pooled overall mortality of 3.51% and 3.73%, respectively, for the total cohort of patients. The result of this meta-analysis suggests that mortality outcomes following CABG in Africa are relatively higher than those in developed nations. Several issues, such as lack of financial resources and poor infrastructure, continue to hinder the optimal practice of CABG procedures in many parts of Africa. Further studies focused on finding factors associated with outcomes following CABG should be done. Though there were a few limitations to the study largely from a lack of data from several regions and countries in Africa, the result from this meta-analysis can serve as a benchmark for future studies until more relevant data are reported.

STICH3C: Rationale and Study Protocol

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the recommended mode of revascularization in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (iLVSD) and multivessel disease. However, contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes have improved with the integration of novel technologies and refinement of revascularization strategies, and PCI is often used in clinical practice in this population. There is a lack of evidence from randomized trials comparing contemporary state-of-the-art PCI versus CABG for the treatment of iLVSD and multivessel disease. This was the impetus for the STICH3C trial (Canadian CABG or PCI in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy), described here.

METHODS

The STICH3C trial is a prospective, unblinded, international, multicenter trial with an expected sample size of 754 participants from ≈45 centers. Patients with multivessel/left main coronary artery disease and iLVSD with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% considered by the local Heart Team appropriate for and amenable to revascularization by both modes of revascularization will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to state-of-the-art PCI or CABG.

RESULTS

The primary end point is the composite of death from any cause, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, urgent repeat revascularization, or heart failure readmission, summarized as a time-to-event outcome. The key hierarchical end point is time to death and frequency of hospitalizations for heart failure. The key safety outcome is a composite of major adverse events. Disease-specific quality-of-life and health economics measures will be compared between groups. Participants will be followed for a median of 5 years, with a minimum follow-up of 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

STICH3C will directly inform patients, clinicians, and international practice guidelines about the efficacy and safety of CABG versus PCI in patients with iLVSD. The results will provide novel and broad evidence, including clinical events, health status, and economic assessments, to guide care for patients with iLVSD and severe coronary artery disease.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique identifier: NCT05427370.

Coronary revascularization for heart failure with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common cause of heart failure (HF). Whether coronary revascularization improves outcomes in patients with HF receiving guideline-recommended pharmacological therapy (GRPT) remains uncertain; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched in public databases for RCTs published between 1 January 2001 and 22 November 2022, investigating the effects of coronary revascularization on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic HF due to CAD. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. We included five RCTs that enrolled, altogether, 2842 patients (most aged <65 years; 85% men; 67% with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%). Overall, compared to medical therapy alone, coronary revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.99; p = 0.0278) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93; p = 0.0024) but not the composite of hospitalization for HF or all-cause mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74-1.01; p = 0.0728). There were insufficient data to show whether the effects of coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention were similar or differed.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with chronic HF and CAD enrolled in RCTs, the effect of coronary revascularization on all-cause mortality was statistically significant but neither substantial (HR 0.88) nor robust (upper 95% CI close to 1.0). RCTs were not blinded, which may bias reporting of the cause-specific reasons for hospitalization and mortality. Further trials are required to determine which patients with HF and CAD obtain a substantial benefit from coronary revascularization by either coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Determinants and clinical outcomes of stroke following revascularization among patients with reduced ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

Stoke after revascularization including both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is an uncommon but devastating complication. Patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) had an increased risk of stroke after revascularization. However, little is known about the determinants and outcomes of stroke among patients with reduced EF following revascularization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort study of patients with preoperative reduced EF (≤40%) who received revascularization by either PCI or CABG between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2014 was performed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent correlates of stroke. Logistic regression models were applied to evaluate the association of stroke with clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1937 patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 111 (5.7%) patients suffered from stroke during the median 3.5-year follow-up. Older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; p = .009), history of hypertension (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.18-2.73; p = .007), and history of stroke (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.19-3.36; p = .008) were found to be independent predictors for stroke. Patients with and without stroke had similar risk of all-cause death (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.59-1.41; p = .670). However, stroke was associated with higher odds ratio of heart failure (HF) hospitalization (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.74-4.40; p < .001) and composite end point (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.42; p = .021).

CONCLUSIONS

Further research appears warranted to minimize the complication of stroke and improve long-term outcomes among patients with reduced EF who underwent such high risk revascularization procedural.

Surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization for heart failure: an in silico model using routinely collected health data to emulate a clinical trial

AIMS

The choice of revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in people with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction is not guided by high-quality evidence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A trial of CABG vs. PCI in people with heart failure (HF) was modelled in silico using routinely collected healthcare data. The in silico trial cohort was selected by matching the target trial cohort, identified from Hospital Episode Statistics in England, with individual patient data from the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial. Allocation to CABG vs. complex PCI demonstrated random variation across administrative regions in England and was a valid statistical instrument. The primary outcome was 5-year all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. Instrumental variable analysis (IVA) was used for the primary analysis. Results were expressed as average treatment effects (ATEs) with 95 confidence intervals (CIs). The target population included 13 519 HF patients undergoing CABG or complex PCI between April 2009 and March 2015. After matching, the emulated trial cohort included 2046 patients. The unadjusted primary outcome rate was 51.1 in the CABG group and 70.0 in the PCI group. IVA of the emulated cohort showed that CABG was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (ATE 16.2, 95 CI 20.6 to 11.8), with comparable estimates in the unmatched target population (ATE 15.5, 95 CI 17.5 to 13.5).

CONCLUSION

In people with HF, in silico modelling suggests that CABG is associated with fewer deaths or cardiovascular hospitalizations at 5 years vs. complex PCI. A pragmatic clinical trial is needed to test this hypothesis and this trial would be feasible.

Is the world ready for the STICH 3.0 trial?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is responsible for >50% of heart failures cases. Patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) are known to have poorer outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared to patients with a normal ejection fraction. Nevertheless, <1% of patients in coronary revascularization trials to date had iLVSD. The purpose of this review is to describe coronary revascularization modalities in patients with iLVSD and highlight the need for randomized controlled trial evidence comparing these treatments in this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Network meta-analytic findings of observational studies suggest that PCI is associated with higher rates of mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization but not stroke compared to CABG in iLVSD. In recent years, outcomes for patients undergoing PCI have improved as a result of advances in technologies and techniques.

SUMMARY

The optimal coronary revascularization modality in patients with iLVSD remains unknown. In observational studies, CABG appears superior to PCI; however, direct randomized evidence is absent and developments in PCI techniques have improved post-PCI outcomes in recent years. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure 3.0 consortium of trials will seek to address the clinical equipoise in coronary revascularization in patients with iLVSD.

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease-Current Management and Future Perspectives

Due to its anatomical features, patients with an obstruction of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) have an increased risk of death. For years, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered as a gold standard for revascularization. However, notable advancements in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) led to its acknowledgement as an important treatment alternative, especially in patients with low and intermediate anatomical complexity. Although recent years brought several random clinical trials that investigated the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous approach in LMCA, there are still uncertainties regarding optimal revascularization strategies. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment methods of LMCA disease, focusing on percutaneous methods.

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.

Incidence and prognostic impact of the calcified nodule in coronary artery disease patients with end-stage renal disease on dialysis

Coronary artery calcification is frequently observed in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Calcified nodule (CN) is recognized as one of the vulnerable plaque characteristics responsible for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Although CN is a cause of ACS in only 10%, its prevalence may be higher in elderly patients and/or ESRD. The aim of this study is to investigate incidence, clinical characteristics, and prognostic impact of CN in CAD patients with ESRD on dialysis. A total of 51 vessels from 49 CAD patients with ESRD on dialysis were enrolled in this study. CN was defined as a high-backscattering mass protruding into the lumen with a strong signal attenuation and an irregular surface by optical coherence tomography. Incidence, clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with CN were studied. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and stroke. CNs were observed in 30 vessels from 29 patients (59.2%). Duration of dialysis was significantly longer in CN group than in non-CN group (P = 0.03). Overall, all-cause death, cardiac death, TVR and MACE occurred in 7 (14.3%), 3 (6.1%), 11 (22.4%) and 16 (32.7%) patients during follow-up (median 826 days), respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that MACE-free survival was significantly lower in patients with CN compared with those without CN (Log-rank, P = 0.036).In conclusion, CN was observed in about 60% of the CAD patients with ESRD and was associated with duration of dialysis and worse prognosis.

Change in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction With Coronary Artery Revascularization and Subsequent Risk for Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Coronary revascularization is recommended to treat ischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the relations of revascularization-associated ejection fraction (EF) change to subsequent outcomes have not been elucidated.

METHODS

In 10 071 veterans (mean age 67 years; 1% women; 15% non-White) who underwent a first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2010, and had prerevascularization and postrevascularization EF measured, we calculated delta-EF (postprocedure EF-preprocedure EF). We related delta-EF as a continuous measure and as categories (≤-5, -5<delta-EF<0, delta-EF=0, 0<delta-EF<5, and delta-EF≥5) to death (using Cox regression) and heart failure hospitalization days (using negative binomial regression) in multivariable-adjusted models, for total sample, and PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting strata.

RESULTS

Over follow-up (mean/maximum 5/14 years) 56% died. Each 5% improvement in delta-EF was associated with statistically significant reductions in death and heart failure hospitalization days of 5% (95% CI, 3%-7%) and 10% (95% CI, 5%-15%), respectively, in the total sample and 6% (95% CI, 4%-8%) and 10% (95% CI, 5%-16%), respectively, in the PCI subgroup. Patients in the highest delta-EF category had 27% (95% CI, 19%-34%) lower mortality (30% [95% CI, 21%-37%] lower in PCI stratum) and ≈40% lower heart failure hospitalization days in total sample and PCI stratum, compared with those in the lowest category. Relations of delta-EF and outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting subgroup did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Revascularization-associated EF improvement was associated with significant reductions in mortality and heart failure hospitalization burden, particularly in the PCI subgroup.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

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: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers 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: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

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: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers 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

Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

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

Purpose

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

Patients and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Real-World Outcomes of Revascularization Strategies in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Three-Vessel Coronary Disease Stratified by Mitral Regurgitation

Aims: Limited information exists regarding optimal revascularization options for patients with triple-vessel coronary artery disease (TVD), heart failure (HF), and different degrees of mitral regurgitation (MR). Thus, we aimed to compare the effect of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the indicated patients.

Methods and Results: In the real-world prospective study, 1190 patients with multi-vessel disease and decreased left ventricular systolic function but without severe MR, who underwent PCI or CABG, were enrolled and followed-up for 4.7 ± 1.8 years. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. Secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary outcome. Risk of the primary endpoint was higher in the PCI than in the CABG group (HR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.14–1.67, and P < 0.01), particularly in patients with moderate MR (HR = 1.85, 95%CI: 1.35–2.55, and P < 0.01). In patients with no-mild MR, the risk of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between PCI and CABG (P = 0.09). Treatment with PCI was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in the moderate MR cohort, while PCI was comparable to CABG in the no-mild MR cohort.

Conclusions: In this real-world study, for patients with HF and TVD, CABG was related to lower adverse outcome rates compared to PCI. Assessment of MR can aid in selecting optimal revascularization therapies and in risk stratification.

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

AIMS

This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be preferred in patients with severely reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from the conception of the databases till 1 May 2020 for studies on patients with severely reduced LV ejection fraction undergoing CABG and PCI. The primary clinical endpoints were 30 day and long-term mortalities. The secondary endpoints were 30 day and long-term incidences of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, long-term cardiovascular mortality, and repeat revascularization. Eighteen studies involving 11 686 patients were analysed. Compared with PCI, CABG had lower long-term mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.80, P < 0.01], cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43-0.85, P < 0.01), MI (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.72, P < 0.01), and repeat revascularization (HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.23-0.47, P < 0.01) risk. Significant differences were not observed for long-term stroke (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.74-1.87, P = 0.49), 30 day mortality (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.89-1.56, P = 0.25), and MI (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.16-1.11, P = 0.08) risk. CABG was associated with a higher risk of stroke within 30 days (HR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.07-7.77, P = 0.04). In a subgroup analysis of propensity score-matched studies, CABG was associated with a higher long-term risk of stroke (HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.20-2.16, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severely reduced LV ejection fraction, CABG resulted in a lower mortality rate and an increased risk of stroke.

Myocardial ischemia and coronary disease in heart failure

Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome and represents the final path of numerous heart diseases. Coronary artery disease is recognized as the primary risk factor for heart failure development, being the main etiological factor in more than 50% of heart failure patients in North America and Europe. Regardless of overt coronary artery disease, myocardial ischemia is a common finding in failing hearts, likely due to structural or functional coronary circulation alterations. Ischemia is a self-propagating process which irreversibly impairs the cardiac function and negatively impacts prognosis. Thus, a better and thorough understanding of myocardial ischemia pathophysiology in heart failure would likely lead to significantly improved outcomes in these patients. This review aims to describe the mechanisms of myocardial ischemia and coronary artery disease in heart failure, focusing on coronary circulation dysfunctions due to increased parietal stress or non-obstructive coronary disease, and discussing the association and management of coronary artery disease in patients with heart failure.

Treatment strategies in ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with ischaemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) remains controversial. We aimed to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and medical therapy (MT) in a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing any combination of PCI, CABG and MT in patients with iLVSD were analysed in a frequentist network meta-analysis (generic inverse variance method). Primary outcome was mortality at longest available follow-up. Secondary outcomes were cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and repeat revascularization (RR).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included (n = 23 633; 4 randomized controlled trials). Compared to CABG, PCI was associated with higher mortality [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.53], cardiac death (IRR 1.65, 95% CI 1.18-2.33), MI (IRR 2.18, 95% CI 1.70-2.80) and RR (IRR 3.75, 95% CI 2.89-4.85). Compared to CABG, MT was associated with higher mortality (IRR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26-1.84), cardiac death (IRR 3.83, 95% CI 2.12-6.91), MI (IRR 3.22, 95% CI 1.52-6.79) and RR (IRR 3.37, 95% CI 1.67-6.79). Compared to MT, PCI was associated with lower cardiac death (IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.78). CABG ranked as the best revascularization strategy for mortality, cardiac death, MI and RR; MT ranked as the strategy associated with the lowest incidence of stroke. Left ventricular ejection fraction, year of study, use of drug-eluting stents did not affect relative treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

CABG appears to be the best therapy for iLVSD, although mainly based on observational data. Definitive randomized controlled trials comparing CABG and PCI in iLVSD are required.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID

132414.

Empirical use of causal inference methods to evaluate survival differences in a real-world registry vs those found in randomized clinical trials

With heighted interest in causal inference based on real-world evidence, this empirical study sought to understand differences between the results of observational analyses and long-term randomized clinical trials. We hypothesized that patients deemed "eligible" for clinical trials would follow a different survival trajectory from those deemed "ineligible" and that this factor could partially explain results. In a large observational registry dataset, we estimated separate survival trajectories for hypothetically trial-eligible vs ineligible patients under both coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We also explored whether results would depend on the causal inference method (inverse probability of treatment weighting vs optimal full propensity matching) or the approach to combine propensity scores from multiple imputations (the "across" vs "within" approaches). We found that, in this registry population of PCI/CABG multivessel patients, 32.5% would have been eligible for contemporaneous RCTs, suggesting that RCTs enroll selected populations. Additionally, we found treatment selection bias with different distributions of propensity scores between PCI and CABG patients. The different methodological approaches did not result in different conclusions. Overall, trial-eligible patients appeared to demonstrate at least marginally better survival than ineligible patients. Treatment comparisons by eligibility depended on disease severity. Among trial-eligible three-vessel diseased and trial-ineligible two-vessel diseased patients, CABG appeared to have at least a slight advantage with no treatment difference otherwise. In conclusion, our analyses suggest that RCTs enroll highly selected populations, and our findings are generally consistent with RCTs but less pronounced than major registry findings.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

PURPOSE

There is a paucity of comparative data examining the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVD).

METHODS

We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis of clinical outcomes comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass (CABG) in patients with LVD (left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤ 40%), using the random effects model. Effects size is reported as odds ratio (OR) and a 95% confidence interval. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, and a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30-day, 3-year, and long-term (6.3 ± 0.9 years) follow-ups. Seventeen studies (16 observational, 1 randomized) and 18,599 patients (CABG 9651; PCI 8948) were included.

RESULTS

PCI and CABG had comparable all-cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49-1.23) and 3 years (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91-1.21); however, PCI was associated with increased long-term morality after a mean follow-up of 6.3 ± 0.9 years (31.6% vs. 24.3%, OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.21-1.64). A similar mortality trend was observed in the subgroup of patients with EF ≤ 35%. PCI had a higher rate of repeat revascularization at 3-year and long-term follow-ups. The long-term rates of stroke and MI were comparable. PCI, on the other hand, had lower rates of stroke at 30-day and 3-year follow-ups.

CONCLUSION

CABG was associated with lower rates of long-term mortality and revascularization but higher rate of upfront stroke in patients with LVD. However, the data included consisted predominantly of observational studies, highlighting the paucity and need for randomized trials.

Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Improves Survival Without Increasing the Risk of Stroke in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure in Comparison to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis With 54,173 Patients

Objective

To evaluate whether there is any difference on the results of patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of ischemic heart failure (HF).

Methods

Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [CENTRAL/CCTR], ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online [SciELO], Literatura Latino-americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde [LILACS], and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published until February 2019. Main outcomes of interest were mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke.

Results

The search yielded 5,775 studies for inclusion. Of these, 20 articles were analyzed, and their data were extracted. The total number of patients included was 54,173, and those underwent CABG (N=29,075) or PCI (N=25098). The hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality (HR 0.763; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.678-0.859; P<0.001), myocardial infarction (HR 0.481; 95% CI 0.365-0.633; P<0.001), and repeat revascularization (HR 0.321; 95% CI 0.241-0.428; P<0.001) were lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group. The HR for stroke showed no statistically significant difference between the groups (random effect model: HR 0.879; 95% CI 0.625-1.237; P=0.459).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis found that CABG surgery remains the best option for patients with ischemic HF, without increase in the risk of stroke.

Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score and EuroSCORE-2 Appropriately Assess 30-Day Postoperative Mortality in the STICH Trial and a Contemporary Cohort of Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Surgical Revascularization

BACKGROUND

The STICH trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated a survival benefit of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular dysfunction. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score and the EuroSCORE-2 (ES2) are used for risk assessment in cardiac surgery, with little information available about their accuracy in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. We assessed the ability of the STS score and ES2 to evaluate 30-day postoperative mortality risk in STICH and a contemporary cohort (CC) of patients with a left ventricle ejection fraction ≤35% undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting outside of a trial setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The STS and ES2 scores were calculated for 814 STICH patients and 1246 consecutive patients in a CC. There were marked variations in 30-day postoperative mortality risk from 1 patient to another. The STS scores consistently calculated lower risk scores than ES2 (1.5 versus 2.9 for the CC and 0.9 versus 2.4 for the STICH cohort), and underestimated postoperative mortality risk. The STS and ES2 scores had moderately good C statistics: CC (0.727, 95% CI: 0.650-0.803 for STS, and 0.707, 95% CI: 0.620-0.795 for ES2); STICH (0.744, 95% CI: 0.677-0.812, for STS and 0.736, 95% CI: 0.665-0.808 for ES2). Despite the CC patients having higher STS and ES2 scores than STICH patients, mortality (3.5%) was lower than that of STICH (4.8%), suggesting a possible decrease in postoperative mortality over the past decade.

CONCLUSIONS

The 30-day postoperative mortality risk of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left ventricular dysfunction varies markedly. Both the STS and ES2 score are effective in evaluating risk, although the STS score tend to underestimate risk.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

Impact of left ventricular function on clinical outcomes among patients with coronary artery disease

AIMS

To investigate the clinical relevance of contemporary cut-offs of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) including an intermediate phenotype with mid-range reduced ejection fraction among patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patient-level data were summarized from five randomized clinical trials in which 6198 patients underwent clinically indicated percutaneous coronary intervention in different clinical settings. We assessed all-cause mortality as primary endpoint at five-year follow-up. According to the proposed LVEF cut-offs, 3816 patients were included in the preserved LVEF group (LVEF ≥ 50%), 1793 in the mid-range reduced LVEF group (LVEF 40-49%) and 589 patients in the reduced LVEF group (LVEF < 40%). Patients in the reduced LVEF group were at increased risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality compared with both, preserved and mid-range LVEF throughout five years of follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio 2.39 (95% confidence interval 1.75-3.28, p < 0.001) and 1.68 (95% confidence interval 1.34-2.10, p < 0.001), respectively). The risk of cardiac death and the composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were higher for patients in the reduced LVEF group compared with the preserved and mid-range reduced LVEF groups, but also for the mid-range LVEF compared with preserved LVEF group (adjusted p < 0.05 for all comparisons) throughout five years. Irrespective of clinical presentation at baseline (stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome), patients with reduced or mid-range LVEF were at increased risk of all-cause mortality and cardiac death up to five years compared with the other group (adjusted p < 0.05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSION

Patients with reduced LVEF <40% or mid-range LVEF 40-49% in the context of coronary artery disease undergoing clinically indicated percutaneous coronary intervention are at increased risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death and the composite of cardiac death, stroke and myocardial infarction throughout five years of follow-up. The recently proposed LVEF cut-offs contribute to the differentiation and risk stratification of patients with ischaemic heart disease.

Current Practice of State-of-the-Art Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Heart Failure

The best treatment for patients with ischemic heart failure (HF) is still on debate. There is growing evidence that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) benefits these patients. The current recommendations for revascularization in this context are that CABG is reasonable when it comes to decreasing morbidity and mortality rates for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%), and significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and should be considered in patients with operable coronary anatomy, regardless whether or not there is a viable myocardium (class IIb). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not have enough data to allow the panels to reach a conclusion. The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry (KorAHF) had its data released recently, showing that patients with acute HF who underwent CABG had lower death rates, more complete revascularization and less adverse outcomes compared with patients treated with PCI. Recent ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization clearly recommended CABG as the first choice of revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acceptable surgical risk to improve prognosis in this scenario of left ventricular dysfunction. However, a high peri-procedural risk must be compared with the benefit of late mortality, and pros and cons of each strategy (either PCI or CABG) must be weighed in the decision-making process. Spurred on by the publication of the above-mentioned article and the release of new guidelines, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization options in patients with HF.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Using Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

The relative safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction remains controversial; therefore we conducted this meta-analysis to identify the optimal strategy for such cohorts. A comprehensive search of the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2003 to March 1, 2018 was performed to identify the eligible adjusted observational studies. The primary end point was all-cause death during the longest follow-up, and the generic inverse variance random-effect model was used to estimate the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Eight adjusted observational studies involving 10,268 patients were included. Compared with CABG, PCI with DES was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.60), cardiac mortality (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.95), myocardial infarction (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.24), and repeat revascularization (HR 4.95, 95% CI 3.28 to 7.46) in patients with coronary artery disease and LV systolic dysfunction. Besides, separate analysis of patients with LV ejection fraction <35% or left main and/or multivessel disease obtained similar results compared with the overall analysis. However, DES and CABG shared similar rates of stroke (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.26). In conclusion, CABG appears to be superior to PCI with DES for patients with coronary artery disease and LV systolic dysfunction, particularly in patients with severe LV systolic dysfunction or those with left main and/or multivessel disease.

Preferred Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Clinically, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is generally used to treat patients with ischemic heart failure. However, the optimal treatment strategy remains unknown. This study examined the efficacy of the two coronary revascularization strategies for severe ischemic heart failure by using a meta-analysis. Studies comparing the efficacy of CABG and PCI were obtained from PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The quality of each eligible article was evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), and the meta-analysis was performed using Stata version 12.0 software. Eventually, 12 studies involving 9248 patients (n=4872 in CABG group; n=4376 in PCI group) were subject to the meta-analysis for subsequent pooling calculation. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) [HR=0.83, 95% CI (0.76, 0.90), P<0.001; heterogeneity, P=0.218, I²=22.9%] of CABG compared with that of PCI revealed a statistical superiority of CABG to PCI in terms of the long-term mortality. Furthermore, CABG showed more advantages over PCI with respect to the incidence of myocardial infarction [HR=0.51, 95% CI (0.39, 0.67), P<0.001; heterogeneity, P=0.707, I²=0%] and repeat revascularization [HR=0.40, 95% CI (0.27, 0.59), P<0.001; heterogeneity, P<0.001, I²=80.1%]. It was concluded that CABG appears to be more advantageous than PCI for the treatment of ischemic heart failure in the given clinical setting.

CABG for patients with heart dysfunction: when and why to refuse surgery

Surgical myocardial revascularization in patients with reduced left ventricular function has been a matter of debate for decades. A recently-published 10-year extension follow-up of the STICH trial has conclusively demonstrated the benefit of surgical myocardial revascularization in patients with significant coronary artery disease and low left ventricular ejection fraction. However, patient selection for surgery remains challenging, and so does the decision to perform percutaneous rather than surgical revascularization in this class of patients. New evidence helped to clarify the role of preoperative patients' characteristics as risk factors for surgery and to identify those patients who may benefit the most from surgery. Focus of this review is to review epidemiology and results of observational and investigational studies on revascularization in patients with reduced left ventricular function with a particular emphasis on relative indication of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention.

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.

Coronary bypass in left ventricular dysfunction and differential cardiac recovery

Background

We aimed to examine the efficacy of surgical revascularization with respect to improvement in ventricular function and survival in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and poor left ventricular function.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 429 patients (median age 64.6 years, 81.1% male) with ejection fractions <40% undergoing isolated primary coronary artery bypass grafting from 2000 to 2016. Techniques included on-pump cardioplegic arrest ( n = 312), off-pump ( n = 75), and on-pump beating heart ( n = 42). Propensity matching was performed to compare the cardioplegic arrest group ( n = 114) with the combined off-pump and beating heart groups ( n = 114).

Results

Postoperatively, ejection fraction increased by 10.1% ± 13.1% (from 31.4% ± 7.1% to 41.6% ± 13.6%; p < 0.001) and mitral regurgitation grade improved ( p < 0.001) but right ventricular function on echocardiographic assessment worsened over time ( p = 0.04). No difference in ejection fraction improvement was seen in the time periods <1 (9.8% ± 11.2%), 1–5 (11.6% ± 14.5%), and >5 (8.8% ± 14.2%) years ( p = 0.442). Following propensity matching, there was no significant difference between the combined off-pump/beating heart and cardioplegic arrest groups with respect to survival or postoperative complications.

Conclusions

Patients with moderate to severe left ventricular dysfunction experience long-term improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction after coronary artery bypass. However, right ventricular function often continues to decline, contributing to persistent or worsening heart failure symptoms and late mortality. No difference in survival was seen between the 2 techniques.

Survival Benefits of Invasive Versus Conservative Strategies in Heart Failure in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease

Background—

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction caused by ischemic heart disease is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. It remains unclear whether revascularization by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) carries benefits or risks in this group of stable patients compared with medical treatment.

Methods and Results—

We performed a meta-analysis of available studies comparing different methods of revascularization (PCI or CABG) against each other or medical treatment in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke were also analyzed. Twenty-one studies involving a total of 16 191 patients were included. Compared with medical treatment, there was a significant mortality reduction with CABG (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.72; P <0.001) and PCI (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–0.85; P <0.001). When compared with PCI, CABG still showed a survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.90; P <0.001).

Conclusions—

The present meta-analysis indicates that revascularization strategies are superior to medical treatment in improving survival in patients with ischemic heart disease and reduced ejection fraction. Between the 2 revascularization strategies, CABG seems more favorable compared with PCI in this particular clinical setting.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

The optimal method of coronary revascularization for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction is unclear. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in these patients. Two investigators independently searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases for relevant studies. Four prospective and 5 retrospective studies, published before March 2015, involving 6082 patients were included. Compared with PCI, CABG was significantly associated with lower long-term death (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.96, P = .01, I2 = 0%), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, P = .03, I2 = 44%), and repeat revascularization (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.14-0.22, P < .001, I2 = 32%). The short-term death rate was comparable between CABG and PCI (OR: 2.09, 95% CI: 0.80-5.45, P = .13, I2 = 9%). Coronary artery bypass grafting has long-term benefits compared with PCI in patients with CAD and LV dysfunction.

Determinants of Left Ventricular Systolic Function Improvement Following Coronary Artery Revascularization in Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF)

Revascularization therapy such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should be considered for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, revascularization therapy does not always improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The purpose of this study was to investigate the determinants of LVEF improvement following revascularization in HFrEF patients. From 2,229 consecutive decompensated heart failure patients, a total of 47 HFrEF patients who underwent revascularization were included in the analysis. Improvement of LVEF was defined as [(LVEF during chronic phase) - (LVEF during acute phase)] ≥ 10%. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to investigate the determinants of LVEF improvement. The prevalence of revascularization by PCIs including chronic total occlusion (CTO) was significantly greater in the improved EF group (45.0%) as compared to the non-improved EF group (11.1%) (P = 0.02). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that revascularization by PCIs including CTO was the significant determinant of the LVEF improvement after adjusting for confounding factors (OR 5.43, 95% CI 1.06-27.74, P = 0.04). Optimal medical therapy (angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and/or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) and beta-blockers) was less frequently prescribed in patients with CABG (50.0% for ACE inhibitor and/or ARB and 41.7% for beta-blocker) than in patients without CABG (94.3% for both) (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, revascularization by PCIs including CTO was the significant determinant of LVEF improvement in HFrEF patients. Our results underscore the importance of optimal medical therapy even if patients receive complete revascularization such as CABG.

Gene Therapy in Cardiac Surgery: Clinical Trials, Challenges, and Perspectives

The concept of gene therapy was introduced in the 1970s after the development of recombinant DNA technology. Despite the initial great expectations, this field experienced early setbacks. Recent years have seen a revival of clinical programs of gene therapy in different fields of medicine. There are many promising targets for genetic therapy as an adjunct to cardiac surgery. The first positive long-term results were published for adenoviral administration of vascular endothelial growth factor with coronary artery bypass grafting. In this review we analyze the past, present, and future of gene therapy in cardiac surgery. The articles discussed were collected through PubMed and from author experience. The clinical trials referenced were found through the Wiley clinical trial database (http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/genmed/clinical/) as well as the National Institutes of Health clinical trial database (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Effect of coronary artery revascularization on in-hospital outcomes and long-term prognoses in acute myocardial infarction patients with prior ischemic stroke

Objective

To investigate whether coronary artery revascularization therapies (CART), including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), can improve the in-hospital and long-term outcomes for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with prior ischemic stroke (IS).

Methods

A total of 387 AMI patients with prior IS were enrolled consecutively from January 15, 2005 to December 24, 2011 in this cohort study. All patients were categorized into the CART group (n = 204) or the conservative medications (CM) group (n = 183). In-hospital cardiocerebral events and long-term mortality of the two groups after an average follow-up of 36 months were recorded by Kaplan-Meier survival curves and compared by Logistic regression and the Cox regression model.

Results

The CART patients were younger (66.5 ± 9.7 years vs. 71.7 ± 9.7 years, P < 0.01), had less non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (11.8% vs. 20.8%, P = 0.016) and more multiple-vascular coronary lesions (50% vs. 69.4%, P = 0.031). The hospitalization incidence of cardiocerebral events in the CART group was 9.3% while 26.2% in the CM group (P < 0.01). CART significantly reduced the risk of in-hospital cardiocerebral events by 65% [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13–0.92]. By the end of follow-up, 57 cases (41.6%) died in CM group (n = 137) and 24 cases (12.2%) died in CART group (n = 197). Cox regression indicated that CART decreased the long-term mortality by 72% [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.06–0.46], while categorical analysis indicated no significant difference between PCI and CABG.

Conclusions

CART has a significant effect on improving the in-hospital and long-term prognoses for AMI patients with prior IS.