Selection of Surgical or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Provides Differential Longevity Benefit

Techniques and Results of Multiple Arterial Bypass Grafting: Towards More "Curative" Coronary Revascularizations

Surgical coronary bypass has evolved continually, and most analyses currently favor performing coronary grafts with autologous living arterial conduits to obtain better long-term patencies and clinical outcomes. With bilateral internal mammary artery grafts and both radial arteries, 4 excellent arterial conduits exist for creating "all-arterial" revascularization in the majority of multivessel disease patients, including those with valve disorders. Using contemporary surgical techniques, it is possible to obtain greater than 95% overall early graft patencies that translate into better late outcomes, including improved survival, freedom from myocardial infarction, fewer percutaneous coronary interventions, and redo coronary bypass procedures. The overall goal is to revascularize the 2 most important coronary systems with internal mammary artery grafts, and the rest with radial arteries, depending on the anatomy, experience, and choice of the surgeon. Using highly validated management strategies, early postoperative complications, including the incidence of sternal infections, are extremely uncommon, and in many practices, multi-arterial grafts currently are used in the majority of multivessel patients, including those with concomitant valve disease. Because patencies and outcomes are significantly better than with saphenous vein bypass or percutaneous coronary interventions, referring physicians frequently favor multi-arterial bypass procedures as the primary therapy for patients with prognostically serious multivessel disease. Thus, coronary bypass using predominantly autologous arterial conduits should play an increasingly important role in the future management of severe coronary atherosclerosis.

Comparative Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are the options for revascularization in coronary artery disease (CAD). This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of CABG and PCI for the management of patients with CAD. The meta-analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. The reference list of included articles was also searched manually for additional publications. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. In total, 12 randomized control trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 9,941 patients (4,954 treated with CABG and 4,987 with PCI). The analysis showed that PCI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-1.45) and revascularization (RR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.82-3.21). However, no significant differences were reported between two arms regarding cardiovascular mortality (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.96-1.39), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.82-1.67), and stroke (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.35-1.16). CABG was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and revascularization compared to PCI. However, no significant difference was reported in the risk of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke between the two groups.

IACTS position statement on "2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization": section 7.1-a consensus document

American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA) and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) recently released the Clinical Practice Guidelines for myocardial revascularization [1]. The guidelines were the felt need of the fraternity and this single all-encompassing document, relegating the previous six guidelines on the subject to archives, is indeed welcome. However, the downgrading of coronary artery bypass surgery for stable multivessel coronary artery disease and its bracketing with percutaneous coronary interventions has caused a lot of anguish in the surgical fraternity. This document presents the official viewpoint of the Indian Association of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeons on the matter.

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.

Approach to stable angina in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic kidney disease is one of the major risk factors for coronary artery disease. Both end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and advanced chronic kidney disease patients have atypical presentations of coronary artery disease (CAD) due to modifications in cardinal symptoms and clinical presentation. Data on evaluation and management of coronary artery or stable angina is limited in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients due to a limited number of trials. There are sparse data supporting either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft in advanced CKD patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ISCHEMIA-CKD trial to date is the most extensive prospective randomized study looking at advanced CKD patients study looking at advanced CKD stage 4/5 patients randomized to medical treatment alone vs. invasive strategy for moderate to severe myocardial ischemia. There was no evidence found that an initial invasive strategy compared with conservative strategy with maximal medical management resulted in reduced risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with advanced CKD and coronary artery disease with stable angina.

SUMMARY

In this review, we will discuss the existing data on assessment and management of stable coronary artery disease/stable angina. And how this extrapolates to the application in advanced CKD patients awaiting kidney transplant.

Prognostic Value of Coronary CT Angiography in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND

Severity and extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) assessed by invasive coronary angiography (ICA) guide treatment and may predict clinical outcome in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS).

OBJECTIVES

This study tested the hypothesis that coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) is equivalent to ICA for risk assessment in patients with NSTEACS.

METHODS

The VERDICT (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial evaluated timing of treatment in relation to outcome in patients with NSTEACS and included a clinically blinded coronary CTA conducted prior to ICA. Severity of CAD was defined as obstructive (coronary stenosis ≥50%) or nonobstructive. Extent of CAD was defined as high risk (obstructive left main or proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis and/or multivessel disease) or non-high risk. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, hospital admission for refractory myocardial ischemia, or heart failure.

RESULTS

Coronary CTA and ICA were conducted in 978 patients. During a median follow-up time of 4.2 years (interquartile range: 2.7 to 5.5 years), the primary endpoint occurred in 208 patients (21.3%). The rate of the primary endpoint was up to 1.7-fold higher in patients with obstructive CAD compared with in patients with nonobstructive CAD as defined by coronary CTA (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 2.49; p = 0.002) or ICA (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.11; p = 0.007). In patients with high-risk CAD, the rate of the primary endpoint was 1.5-fold higher compared with the rate in those with non-high-risk CAD as defined by coronary CTA (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.07; p = 0.002). A similar trend was noted for ICA (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.69; p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary CTA is equivalent to ICA for the assessment of long-term risk in patients with NSTEACS. (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes [VERDICT]; NCT02061891).

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.

Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Lesion Site: Results From the EXCEL Trial

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine the extent to which the site of the left main coronary artery (LM) lesion (distal bifurcation versus ostial/shaft) influences the outcomes of revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

BACKGROUND

Among 1,905 patients with LM disease and site-assessed SYNTAX scores of <32 randomized in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, revascularization with PCI and CABG resulted in similar rates of the composite primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 3 years.

METHODS

Outcomes from the randomized EXCEL trial were analyzed according to the presence of angiographic core laboratory-determined diameter stenosis ≥50% involving the distal LM bifurcation (n = 1,559; 84.2%) versus disease isolated to the LM ostium or shaft (n = 293; 15.8%).

RESULTS

At 3 years, there were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke for treatment of both distal LM bifurcation disease (15.6% vs. 14.9%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.42; p = 0.61) and isolated LM ostial/shaft disease (12.4% vs. 13.5%, OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.81; p = 0.77) (p_interaction = 0.65). However, at 3 years, ischemia-driven revascularization occurred more frequently after PCI than CABG in patients with LM distal bifurcation disease (13.0% vs. 7.2%, OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.41 to 2.85; p = 0.0001), but were not significantly different in patients with disease only at the LM ostium or shaft (9.7% vs. 8.4%, OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.52 to 2.69; p = 0.68) (p_interaction = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

In the EXCEL trial, PCI and CABG resulted in comparable rates of death, MI, or stroke at 3 years for treatment of LM disease, including those with distal LM bifurcation disease. Repeat revascularization rates during follow-up after PCI compared with CABG were greater for lesions in the distal LM bifurcation but were similar for disease isolated to the LM ostium or shaft.

Predicting risk of cardiac events among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with conservatively managed non-infarct-related artery coronary artery disease: An analysis of the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized evidence has demonstrated benefit with complete revascularization during the index hospitalization for multivessel coronary artery disease ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients; however, this benefit likely depends on the risk of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

METHODS

Using data from Duke University Medical Center (2003-2012), we identified those at high risk for 1-year MACE among 664 STEMI patients with conservatively managed non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA) lesions. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified clinical and angiographic characteristics associated with MACE (death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization) to 1 year and developed an integer-based risk prediction model for clinical use.

RESULTS

In this cohort (median age 60 years, 30% female), the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier rates for MACE at 30 days and 1 year were 10% and 28%, respectively. Characteristics associated with MACE at 1 year included reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, hypertension, heart failure, higher-risk non-IRA vessels (left main), renal insufficiency, and greater % stenosis of non-IRA lesions. A 15-point risk score including these variables had modest discrimination (C-index 0.67) across a spectrum of subsequent risk (4%-88%) for 1-year MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a wide spectrum of risk following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Using readily available clinical characteristics, the expected incidence of MACE by 1 year can be calculated with a simplified risk score, facilitating a tailored approach to clinical care.

ANMCO/GICR-IACPR/SICI-GISE Consensus Document: the clinical management of chronic ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is a clinical entity of great epidemiological importance. It is becoming increasingly common due to the longer life expectancy, being strictly related to age and to advances in diagnostic techniques and pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Stable CAD encompasses a variety of clinical and anatomic presentations, making the identification of its clinical and anatomical features challenging. Therapeutic interventions should be defined on an individual basis according to the patient's risk profile. To this aim, management flow charts have been reviewed based on sustainability and appropriateness derived from recent evidence. Special emphasis has been placed on non-pharmacological interventions, stressing the importance of lifestyle changes, including smoking cessation, regular physical activity, and diet. Adherence to therapy as an emerging risk factor is also discussed.

Long-term survival after coronary bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention

Objectives

To assess whether there exists a long-term difference in survival after treatment with coronary bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary disease as judged by all-cause mortality.

Methods

Retrospective study from the Feiring Heart Clinic database of survival in 22 880 patients—15 078 treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and 7802 with bypass surgery followed up to 16 years.

Results

Cox regression and propensity score analysis showed no difference in survival for one-vessel and two-vessel disease during the whole study period. In three-vessel disease, however, the analysis revealed a consistent and highly significant survival benefit in the first 8 years with an HR of 0.76 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84, p<0.001) in favour of bypass surgery with similar survival rates in the two treatment strategies after that time period.

Conclusions

Treatment strategy did not affect survival in one-vessel and two-vessel disease, but bypass surgery offered an improved survival in the first 8 years in patients with three-vessel disease. These results are consistent with most previous reports and the survival benefit should be taken into account when selecting a strategy for this patient group.

Adverse events following percutaneous and surgical coronary revascularisation: Analysis of non-MACE outcomes in the Stent or Surgery (SoS) Trial

OBJECTIVES

To analyse adverse events requiring or prolonging hospitalisation in the Stent or Surgery (SoS) trial.

BACKGROUND

Many adverse events following coronary revascularisation are non-major adverse cardiovascular events (non-MACE). Trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) have reported rates of mortality and MACE only.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Comparisons between PCI and CABG groups in the SOS trial were by intention to treat. For patients with non-fatal/non-MACE, number of events per 100 patient years follow-up and duration of hospital stay were assessed. Competing risk analysis was used to illustrate temporal pattern of adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

During 2 y median follow up, 1 one or more adverse event occurred in 47.3% (231) of the PCI group and 53% (265) of the CABG group (p=0.086). Non-fatal/non-MACE occurred in 11.9% of the PCI group and 38.6% of the CABG group (p<0.001). Non-fatal/non-MACE per 100 patient years follow-up was 17.49 (PCI) and 35.04 (CABG), rate ratio 2.0, 95% CI 1.7 to 2.4, p<0.001. Cumulative non-fatal/non-MACE associated hospital stays were 1387 and 3287 days in PCI and CABG groups respectively. Median duration of hospitalisation per non-fatal/non-MACE was 5 days (interquartile range 2 to 11.75 days) in the PCI group and 6 days (interquartile range 2 to 12 days) in the CABG group, p=0.245.

CONCLUSIONS

CABG had lower cumulative incidence of fatal or MACE outcomes, higher cumulative incidence of non-fatal/non-MACE outcomes, and longer cumulative hospitalisation periods compared to the PCI group.

Effect of PCI on Long-Term Survival in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) relieves angina in patients with stable ischemic heart disease, but clinical trials have not shown that it improves survival. Between June 1999 and January 2004, we randomly assigned 2287 patients with stable ischemic heart disease to an initial management strategy of optimal medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group) or optimal medical therapy plus PCI (PCI group) and did not find a significant difference in the rate of survival during a median follow-up of 4.6 years. We now report the rate of survival among the patients who were followed for up to 15 years.

METHODS

We obtained permission from the patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites and some non-VA sites in the United States to use their Social Security numbers to track their survival after the original trial period ended. We searched the VA national Corporate Data Warehouse and the National Death Index for survival information and the dates of death from any cause. We calculated survival according to the Kaplan-Meier method and used a Cox proportional-hazards model to adjust for significant between-group differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Extended survival information was available for 1211 patients (53% of the original population). The median duration of follow-up for all patients was 6.2 years (range, 0 to 15); the median duration of follow-up for patients at the sites that permitted survival tracking was 11.9 years (range, 0 to 15). A total of 561 deaths (180 during the follow-up period in the original trial and 381 during the extended follow-up period) occurred: 284 deaths (25%) in the PCI group and 277 (24%) in the medical-therapy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.21; P=0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

During an extended-follow-up of up to 15 years, we did not find a difference in survival between an initial strategy of PCI plus medical therapy and medical therapy alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. (Funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program and others; COURAGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007657.).

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: Real-world versus clinical trial experience

BACKGROUND

High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) supported by percutaneous left ventricular assist devices offers a treatment option for patients with severe symptoms, complex and extensive coronary artery disease, and multiple comorbidities. The extrapolation from clinical trial to real-world practice has inherent uncertainties. We compared the characteristics, procedures, and outcomes of high-risk PCI supported by a microaxial pump (Impella 2.5) in a multicenter registry versus the randomized PROTECT II trial (NCT00562016).

METHODS

The USpella registry is an observational multicenter voluntary registry of Impella technology. A total of 637 patients treated between June 2007 and September 2013 were included. Of them, 339 patients would have met enrollment criteria for the PROTECT II trial. These were compared with 216 patients treated in the Impella arm of PROTECT II.

RESULTS

Compared to the clinical trial, registry patients were older (70 ± 11.5 vs 67.5 ± 11.0 years); more likely to have chronic kidney disease (30% vs 22.7%), prior myocardial infarction (69.3% vs 56.5%), or prior bypass surgery (39.4% vs. 30.2%); and had similar prevalence of diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and prior stroke. Registry patients had more extensive coronary artery disease (2.2 vs 1.8 diseased vessels) and had a similar Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality. At hospital discharge, registry patients experienced a similar reduction in New York Heart Association class III to IV symptoms compared to trial patients. Registry patients had a trend toward lower in-hospital mortality (2.7% vs 4.6, P = .27).

CONCLUSIONS

USpella provides a real-world and contemporary estimation of the type of procedures and outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing PCI supported by Impella 2.5. Despite the higher risk of registry patients, clinical outcomes appeared to be favorable and consistent compared with the randomized trial.

Relationship Between Cancer and Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

Cardiovascular disease and cancer increasingly coexist, yet relationships between cancer and long-term cardiovascular outcomes post–percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well studied.

Methods and Results

We examined stented PCI patients at Duke (1996–2010) using linked data from the Duke Information Systems for Cardiovascular Care and the Duke Tumor Registry (a cancer treatment registry). Our primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes included composite cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization and all-cause mortality. We used adjusted cause-specific hazard models to examine outcomes among cancer patients (cancer treatment pre-PCI) versus controls (no cancer treatment pre-PCI). Cardiovascular mortality was explored in a cancer subgroup with recent (within 1 year pre-PCI) cancer and in post-PCI cancer patients using post-PCI cancer as a time-dependent variable. Among 15 008 patients, 3.3% (n=496) were cancer patients. Observed rates of 14-year cardiovascular mortality (31.4% versus 27.7%, P=0.31) and composite cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization (51.1% versus 55.8%, P=0.37) were similar for cancer versus control groups; all-cause mortality rates were higher (79.7% versus 49.3%, P<0.01). Adjusted risk of cardiovascular mortality was similar for cancer patients versus controls (hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20) and for patients with versus without recent cancer (hazard ratio 1.46; 95% CI 0.92 to 2.33). Post-PCI cancer, present in 4.3% (n=647) of patients, was associated with cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.51; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.03).

Conclusions

Cancer history was present in a minority of PCI patients but was not associated with worse long-term cardiovascular outcomes. Further investigation into PCI outcomes in this population is warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of revascularization strategies: the ASCERT study

BACKGROUND

ASCERT (American College of Cardiology Foundation and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Collaboration on the Comparative Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategies) was a large observational study designed to compare the long-term effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat coronary artery disease (CAD) over 4 to 5 years.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the cost-effectiveness of CABG versus PCI for stable ischemic heart disease.

METHODS

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Foundation databases were linked to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data. Costs for the index and observation period (2004 to 2008) hospitalizations were assessed by diagnosis-related group Medicare reimbursement rates; costs beyond the observation period were estimated from average Medicare participant per capita expenditure. Effectiveness was measured via mortality and life-expectancy data. Cost and effectiveness comparisons were adjusted using propensity score matching with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS

CABG patients (n = 86,244) and PCI patients (n = 103,549) were at least 65 years old with 2- or 3-vessel coronary artery disease. Adjusted costs were higher for CABG for the index hospitalization, study period, and lifetime by $10,670, $8,145, and $11,575, respectively. Patients undergoing CABG gained an adjusted average of 0.2525 and 0.3801 life-years relative to PCI over the observation period and lifetime, respectively. The life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CABG compared to PCI was $30,454/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a period of 4 years or longer, patients undergoing CABG had better outcomes but at higher costs than those undergoing PCI.

Extent of coronary and myocardial disease and benefit from surgical revascularization in ischemic LV dysfunction [Corrected]

BACKGROUND

Patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction have higher operative risk with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). However, those whose early risk is surpassed by subsequent survival benefit have not been identified.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the impact of anatomic variables associated with poor prognosis on the effect of CABG in ischemic cardiomyopathy.

METHODS

All 1,212 patients in the STICH (Surgical Treatment of IsChemic Heart failure) surgical revascularization trial were included. Patients had coronary artery disease (CAD) and ejection fraction (EF) of ≤35% and were randomized to receive CABG plus medical therapy or optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. This study focused on 3 prognostic factors: presence of 3-vessel CAD, EF below the median (27%), and end-systolic volume index (ESVI) above the median (79 ml/m(2)). Patients were categorized as having 0 to 1 or 2 to 3 of these factors.

RESULTS

Patients with 2 to 3 prognostic factors (n = 636) had reduced mortality with CABG compared with those who received OMT (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56 to 0.89; p = 0.004); CABG had no such effect in patients with 0 to 1 factor (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.44; p = 0.591). There was a significant interaction between the number of factors and the effect of CABG on mortality (p = 0.022). Although 30-day risk with CABG was higher, a net beneficial effect of CABG relative to OMT was observed at >2 years in patients with 2 to 3 factors (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.75; p<0.001) but not in those with 0 to 1 factor (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.31; p = 0.535).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with more advanced ischemic cardiomyopathy receive greater benefit from CABG. This supports the indication for surgical revascularization in patients with more extensive CAD and worse myocardial dysfunction and remodeling. (Comparison of Surgical and Medical Treatment for Congestive Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease [STICH]; NCT00023595).

Composite outcomes in coronary bypass surgery versus percutaneous intervention

BACKGROUND

Recent observational studies show that patients with multivessel coronary disease have a long-term survival advantage with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Important nonfatal outcomes may also affect optimal treatment recommendation.

METHODS

CABG was compared with percutaneous catheter intervention by using a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Medicare patients undergoing revascularization for stable multivessel coronary disease from 2004 through 2008 were identified in national registries. Short-term clinical information from the registries was linked to Medicare data to obtain long-term follow-up out to 4 years from the time of the procedure. Propensity scoring with inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for baseline risk factors.

RESULTS

There were 86,244 CABG and 103,549 PCI patients. The mean age was 74 years, with a median 2.67 years of follow-up. At 4 years, the propensity-adjusted adjusted cumulative incidence of MI was 3.2% in CABG compared with 6.6% in PCI (risk ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.53). At 4 years, the cumulative incidence of stroke was 4.5% in CABG compared with 3.1% in PCI patients (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.31 to 1.54). This difference was primarily due to the higher 30-day stroke rate for CABG (1.55% vs 0.37%). For the composite of death, MI, or stroke, the 4-year adjusted cumulative incidence was 21.6% for CABG and 26.7% for PCI (risk ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

The 4-year composite event rate of death, MI, and stroke favored CABG, whereas the risk of stroke alone favored PCI.