Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Versus Without Chronic Kidney Disease

Comparing outcomes between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians with left main or multivessel disease

Mechanisms of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) differ as CABG provides surgical collateralization and may prolong life by preventing future myocardial infarctions (MI). However, CABG benefits are unclear in octogenarians, where surgical risk is often perceived as higher and PCI is chosen more liberally. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes in octogenarians with left main or multivessel disease who underwent CABG or PCI. Primary outcome was late mortality (> 5 years). Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality, MI, re-revascularization (R-R), acute renal failure (ARF), and stroke. Fourteen studies with 17,942 patients were included. CABG was associated with lower late mortality (hazard ratio, HR: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: CI 1.05-1.44, p < 0.01). In the pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis CABG showed significantly lower risk of death in the follow-up compared to PCI (HR: 1.08, 95%CI 1.02-1.41, p = 0.005). Landmark analyses confirmed the survival advantage of CABG over PCI after 21.5 months of follow-up (HR: 1.31, 1.19-1.44, p < 0.0001), but suggested advantage of PCI over CABG in the first 30-days (HR: 0.72, 0.64-0.82, p < 0.0001) and comparable survival from 1 to 21.5 months (HR: 0.98, 0.92-1.05, p = 0.652). We found lower risk for MI and R-R after CABG but higher perioperative mortality and no differences in ARF and stroke. CABG appears superior to PCI over time in octogenarians with complex CAD. This survival advantage is associated with fewer events of MI and R-R; however, it comes with an increased risk in perioperative mortality.

Cardiac Surgery 2021 Reviewed

PubMed displayed more than 35,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2021." We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. As in recent years, we reviewed the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with their interventional alternatives. COVID reduced cardiac surgical activity around the world. In the coronary field, the FAME 3 trial dominated publications by practically repeating SYNTAX, but with modern stents and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). PCI was again unable to achieve non-inferiority compared with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with triple-vessel disease. Survival advantages of CABG over PCI could be linked to a reduction in myocardial infarctions and current terminology was criticized because the term "myocardial revascularization" is not precise and does not reflect the infarct-preventing collateralization effect of CABG. In structural heart disease, new guidelines were published, providing upgrades of interventional treatments of both aortic and mitral valve disease. While for aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) received a primary recommendation in older and high-risk patients; recommendations for transcatheter mitral edge-to-edge treatment were upgraded for patients considered inappropriate for surgery. For heart team discussions it is important to know that classic aortic valve replacement currently provides strong signals (from registry and randomized evidence) for a survival advantage over TAVI after 5 years. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It can neither be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: Chronic Kidney Disease Has an Independent Adverse Effect on the Long-Term Outcome of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

We examined short- and long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with ischemic heart disease and the effect of renal function on these outcomes. We included 2783 patients who underwent primary elective CABG at a single institution between 2002 and 2020 (age: 67.6 ± 10.2 years; male: 2281 male). They were stratified based on their preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate and underwent off-pump CABG (completion rate, 98.1%); 57.6% cases used bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA). In-hospital mortality rate was 1.0%. Logistic regression analysis revealed that low left ventricular function (<40%), but not chronic kidney disease (CKD) severity, was an independent predictive risk factor for postoperative hospital mortality. Significant differences existed in respiratory complications, infections, and hospitalization duration according to CKD severity. Deep sternal wound infection rate was 0.5%. The mean follow-up period was 7.1 (0–18.5) years. Estimated 10-year survival rates were negatively correlated with CKD severity; in the Cox hazard model, severe CKD was an independent predictor of long-term survival. We examined the relationship between preoperative and intraoperative factors and their effects on long-term survival using propensity score matching by dividing the renal function severity into G1–2 and G3–5. Renal function severity, age, and operative time were independent risk factors. No prognostic improvement was observed with BITA grafts; graft patency was superior in the right internal thoracic artery (52/52; 100%) than in the great saphenous vein (48/59; 81.4%) in G5. Post-CABG in-hospital mortality was unrelated to renal function, but CKD severity strongly influenced long-term survival. Operation time was an important predictor of long-term prognosis in patients with impaired renal function. Treatment plans, including graft and anastomosis-site selections, should be designed to shorten the operation time. In conclusion, using the right internal thoracic artery in CABG is more beneficial in patients with CKD and cardiovascular comorbidities.

Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Objectives

To compare the long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs) for coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Methods

Coronary artery disease patients with decreased kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt;60 ml/min/1.73 m2) who underwent CABG (n = 533) or PCI with DES (n = 952) from 2013 to 2020 were enrolled at a single center. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the CABG and PCI groups for each matched pair of patients with CKD. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of all-cause death. The secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCEs) such as death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization.

Results

A total of 1,485 patients underwent revascularization, such as 533 CABG and 952 patients with PCI. The median follow-up duration was 55.6 months (interquartile range 34.3–74.7 months). Multivariable Cox regression models were used for risk adjustment, and after propensity score matching (PSM), 399 patients were well matched in each group. The in-hospital mortality rate in the CABG group was higher than that in the PCI group, but the difference was not statistically significant (5.0 vs. 2.5%, p = 0.063). At the 1-year follow-up, CABG was associated with a lower survival rate than PCI (94.2 vs. 98.0%, hazard ratio [HR] of 3.72, 95% CI = 1.63–8.49, p &lt; 0.01). At the end of the 5-year follow-up, the freedom from MI and the freedom from repeated revascularization were both better in the CABG group compared to the PCI group (89.1 vs. 81.7%, HR of 0.59, 95% CI = 0.38–0.92, p = 0.019; 86.9 vs. 73.8%, HR of 0.54, 95% CI = 0.36–0.81, p = 0.003, respectively). Furthermore, the freedom from MACCEs was also better in the patients of CABG compared with the patients of PCI (58.5 vs. 51.3%, HR of 0.71, 95% CI = 0.55–0.91, p = 0.030). CABG had a higher cumulative survival rate (68.4 vs. 66.0%) but without a statistically significant difference (HR of 0.92, 95% CI = 0.67–1.27, p = 0.602) compared with that of PCI.

Conclusions

Compared to the use of PCI with a drug-eluting stent among patients with CKD, the use of CABG was associated with a lower MI rate, repeat revascularization rate, and lower number of MACCEs during the long-term follow-up. At a follow-up of 1 year, the number of MACCEs and other adverse events were comparable between the two cohorts, but CABG showed a lower survival rate than PCI.

Coronary Artery Disease in Chronic Kidney Disease: Need for a Heart-Kidney Team-Based Approach

Chronic kidney disease and coronary artery disease are co-prevalent conditions with unique epidemiological and pathophysiological features, that culminate in high rates of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including all-cause mortality. This review outlines a summary of the literature, and nuances pertaining to non-invasive risk assessment of this population, medical management options for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation. A collaborative heart-kidney team-based approach is imperative for critical management decisions for this patient population, especially coronary revascularisation; this review outlines specific periprocedural considerations pertaining to coronary revascularisation, and provides a proposed algorithm for approaching revascularisation choices in patients with end-stage kidney disease based on available literature.

Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective

Over the last 4 decades, percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved dramatically and is now an acceptable treatment option for patients with advanced coronary artery disease. However, trialists have struggled to establish the respective roles for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, especially in patients with multivessel disease and unprotected left-main stem coronary artery disease. Several pivotal trials and meta-analyses comparing these 2 revascularization strategies have enabled the relative merits of each technique to be established with regard to the type of ischemic syndrome, the coronary anatomy, and the patient's overall comorbidity. Precision medicine with individualized prognosis is emerging as an important method of selecting treatment. However, the never-ending advancement of technology, in conjunction with the emergence of novel pharmacological agents, will in the future continue to force us to reconsider the evolving question: "Which treatment strategy is better and for which patient?"