Midterm Outcome of Off-Pump Bypass Procedures Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft in patients with STEMI and unprotected left main stem disease: A systematic review & meta-analysis

Introduction

Owing to its large area of supply, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) has the highest mortality rate among coronary artery lesions, resulting in debate about its optimal revascularization technique. This meta-analysis compares percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of LMCAD.

Method

MEDLINE, TRIP, and Cochrane Central databases were queried from their inception until 25 April 2021, to determine MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events), all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke rates post-revascularization for different follow-ups. 7 RCTs and 50 observational studies having 56,701 patients were included. A random-effects model was used with effect sizes calculated as odds ratios (odds ratio, OR).

Results

In the short term (1 year), PCI had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.58, 95% CI 2.47-5.20; p < 0.00001), but lower strokes (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81; p = 0.002). In the intermediate term (2-5 years), PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.72-4.44; p < 0.00001) and MI (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.17-1.64; p = 0.0002), but significantly lower strokes (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.70; p < 0.0001). PCI also had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.89-3.52; p < 0.00001) in the long term (≥5 years), while in the very long term (≥10 years), PCI had significantly lower all-cause mortalities (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; p = 0.02).

Conclusion

PCI was safer than CABG for patients with stroke for most follow-ups, while CABG was associated with lower repeat revascularizations. However, further research is required to determine PCI's safety over CABG for reducing post-surgery MI.

Matched Analysis of Surgical versus Percutaneous Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is being performed more frequently for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). This study evaluated a real-world propensity-matched analysis of surgical versus percutaneous revascularization for LMCAD.

METHODS

Adults (≥18 years) at a single academic institution undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or PCI for left main stenosis ≥50% between 2010-2018 were examined. Greedy propensity-matching techniques were used to generate well-matched cohorts, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare survival. Multivariable Cox models were created for 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

RESULTS

1091 with LMCAD were identified (898 CABG, 193 PCI). Patients undergoing PCI were significantly older (77 vs 68 years, p<0.001), more likely to have heart failure (26.94% vs 13.14%, p<0.001), and were less likely to have 3-vessel disease (42.49% vs 65.59%, p<0.001). Propensity-matching yielded 215 CABG and 134 PCI well-matched patients. In the matched analysis, 1-year (77.61% vs 88.37%) and 5-year (48.77% vs 75.62%) survival were lower with PCI. Rates of MACCE at 5-years were also higher with PCI (64.93% vs 32.56%, p<0.001). Rates of both myocardial infarction (19.40% vs 7.44%, p=0.001) and repeat revascularization (26.12% vs 7.91%, p<0.001) were higher with PCI. Following risk adjustment, CABG remained associated with reduced risk of mortality (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.54; p<0.001) and MACCE (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28-0.48; p<0.001) at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world, propensity-matched analysis demonstrates substantial advantages in survival and MACCE with CABG for LMCAD, supporting surgical revascularization in this clinical setting in appropriate operative candidates.

Long term outcomes of drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

Background

It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent (DES) is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease at long-term follow up (≥ 3 years).

Methods

Eligible studies were selected by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2016. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke during the longest follow-up. Death, cardiac death, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization were the secondary outcomes.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials and twelve adjusted observational studies involving 14,130 patients were included. DES was comparable to CABG regarding the occurrence of the primary endpoint (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86–1.03). Besides, DES was significantly associated with higher incidence of MI (HR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.09–2.22) and repeat revascularization (HR = 3.09, 95% CI: 2.33–4.10) compared with CABG, while no difference was found between the two strategies regard as the rate of death, cardiac death and stroke. Furthermore, DES can reduce the risk of the composite endpoint of death, MI or stroke (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67–0.95) for ULMCA lesions with SYNTAX score ≤ 32.

Conclusions

Although with higher risk of repeat revascularization, PCI with DES appears to be as safe as CABG for ULMCA disease at long-term follow up. In addition, treatment with DES could be an alternative interventional strategy to CABG for ULMCA lesions with low to intermediate anatomic complexity.

Drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left-main coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

To compare follow-up outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left-main coronary artery disease (LMCAD), we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with propensity-score analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through November 2016. Eligible studies were RCTs or observational studies with propensity-score analysis of DES-PCI versus CABG enrolling patients with LMCAD and reporting ≥ 6-month mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization (RRV). Study-specific estimates were combined using inverse variance-weighted averages of logarithmic hazard ratios (HRs) in the random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 5 RCTs and 17 observational studies with propensity-score analysis enrolling a total of 12,387 patients. Pooled analysis demonstrated a significant increase in a composite of death, MI, and RRV (with/without stroke) after DES-PCI (HR, 1.42; P < 0.00001); no significant difference in a composite of death and MI (with/without stroke); no significant differences in mortality and stroke; a strong trend toward an increase in MI after DES-PCI (HR, 1.44; P = 0.05); and significant increases in any (HR, 1.86; P < 0.00001), target-vessel (HR, 3.28; P < 0.00001), and target-lesion RRV (HR, 2.26; P = 0.003) after DES-PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with CABG, DES-PCI for LMCAD was associated with increases in RRV and the composite of death, MI, and RRV (with/without stroke), despite no differences in mortality, MI, stroke, and the composite of death and MI (with/without stroke).

Meta-analysis study comparing percutaneous coronary intervention/drug eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass surgery of unprotected left main coronary artery disease: Clinical outcomes during short-term versus long-term (> 1 year) follow-up

BACKGROUND

Results on the safety and long-term efficacy of drug-eluting stent placement in unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) compared with those of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) remain inconsistent across randomized clinical trials and recent meta-analysis studies. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and safety over short- and long-term follow-ups by conducting a meta-analysis of large pooled data from randomized controlled trials and up-to-date observational studies.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and reference lists of related articles was performed for studies conducted in the drug-eluting stent era, to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with CABG in ULMCAD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, all-cause mortality, and revascularization after at least 1-year follow-up. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were considered secondary outcomes. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of studies with ≥5 years follow-up was performed to test the sustainability of clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies were extracted with 21,832 patients (10,424 in PCI vs 11,408 in CABG). Pooled analysis demonstrated remarkable differences in long-term follow-up (≥1 year) MACCE (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.27-1.59), P < .00001), repeat revascularization (OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.41-3.73, P < .00001), and MI (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.14-1.53, P = .0002), favoring CABG over PCI. However, stroke risk was significantly lower in the PCI group. Subgroup analysis of studies with ≥5 years follow-up showed similar outcomes except for the noninferiority outcome of MACCE in the PCI arm. However, the PCI group proved good safety profile after a minimum of 30-day follow-up with lower MACCE outcome.

CONCLUSION

PCI for ULMCAD can be applied with attentiveness in carefully selected patients. MI and the need for revascularization remain drawbacks and areas of concern among previous studies. Nonetheless, it has been proven safe during short-term follow-up.

Percutaneous intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization technique in patients with left main coronary artery disease (CAD) remains controversial. We aimed to compare the long-term performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in treatment of left main CAD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched until November 16, 2016.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and 22 matched observational studies including 22,487 patients and 90,167 patient-years of follow-up were included. PCI was associated with an overall higher risk for the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio (HR), 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.77), mainly driven by higher rates of myocardial infarction (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.22-2.34) and revascularization (HR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.86-4.22). The overall risks for all-cause death (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20), cardiac death (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.69-1.59), stroke (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.33-1.24), and the composite safety endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.16) were similar between PCI and CABG. Stratified analysis based on stent types showed that the increased risk for myocardial infarction associated with PCI was only evident in patients with bare-metal stents or early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), but not newer-generation DES. Stratified analyses based on study designs showed largely similar findings with the overall analyses, except for a significantly higher incidence of myocardial infarction in adjusted studies (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.45) but a trend toward higher incidence in randomized trials (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.85-2.27) associated with PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CABG, PCI with newer-generation DES might be a safe alternative revascularization strategy for treatment of left main CAD, but is associated with more repeat revascularization.

Clinical Outcomes of Revascularization Strategies for Patients With MVD/LMCA Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), a new minimally invasive procedure for patients requiring revascularization for multivessel coronary lesions, combines coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left anterior descending (LAD) lesions and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD coronary lesions. However, available data related to outcomes comparing the 3 revascularization therapies is limited to small studies.We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials up to December 31, 2014, without language restriction. A total of 16 randomized trials (n=4858 patients) comparing HCR versus PCI or off-pump CABG (OPCAB) were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events (CVE), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effect and fixed-effect models. Ranking probabilities were used to calculate a summary numerical value: the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.No significant differences were seen between the HCR and PCI in short term (in hospital and 30 days) with regard to MACCE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-2.35), all-cause death (OR = 2.09, 95% CI 0.34-7.66), MI (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.19-2.95), CVE (OR = 4.45, 95% CI 0.39-19.16), and TVR (OR = 6.99, 95% CI 0.17-39.39). However, OPCAB had lower MACCE than HCR (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.00-0.95). In midterm (1 year and 3 year), in comparison with HCR, PCI had higher all-cause death (OR = 5.66, 95% CI 0.00-13.88) and CVE (OR = 4.40, 95% CI 0.01-5.68), and lower MI (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.86), TVR (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.05-2.26), and thus the MACCE (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.35). Off-pump CABG presented a better outcome than HCR with significant lower MACCE (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.68). Surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities showed that HCR may be the superior strategy for MVD and LMCA disease when regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.84), MI (SUCRA = 0.76) in short term, and regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.99), MI (SUCRA = 0.94), and CVE (SUCRA = 0.92) in midterm.Hybrid coronary revascularization seemed to be a feasible and acceptable option for treatment of LMCA disease and MVD. More powerful evidences are required to precisely evaluate risks and benefits of the 3 therapies for patients who have different clinical characteristics.

Is off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting superior to drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease? A meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

As drug-eluting stent (DES) has almost overcome the disadvantage of frequent restenosis, off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) has been introduced to avoid complications of cardiopulmonary bypass. However, which approach may promise better outcomes for patients with coronary artery disease remains controversial.

METHODS

Three databases were searched. The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause death, target vessel revascularization (TVR), repeat revascularization (RRV), myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebrovascular events (CVE). The relative risk (RR) was calculated as the summary statistic.

RESULTS

11,452 patients from 22 studies were included, of which 4949 patients underwent OPCAB and 6503 patients received DES. The cumulative rates of MACCE (RR [95% CI]=0.43 [0.34, 0.54], P<0.00001), all-cause death (RR [95% CI]=0.56 [0.33, 0.96], P=0.03), TVR (RR [95% CI]=0.33 [0.21, 0.53], P<0.00001), RRV (RR [95% CI]=0.22 [0.11, 0.42], P<0.00001) and MI (RR [95% CI]=0.13 [0.05, 0.29], P<0.00001) at 3 years were all lower in OPCAB group. The incidences of in-hospital death (RR [95% CI]=1.31 [0.81, 2.13], P=0.27) and MI (RR [95% CI]=1.03 [0.60, 1.78], P=0.92) were not different between groups, but the rate of in-hospital CVE was lower (RR [95% CI]=2.6355 [1.0033, 6.9228], P=0.05) in DES group.

CONCLUSIONS

OPCAB presents better long-term outcomes of MACCE, all-cause mortality, TVR, RRV and MI but uncertain outcome of postoperative CVE without influencing the incidences of in-hospital death and MI.

A review with meta-analysis of observational studies for survival following off-pump coronary artery bypass versus drug-eluting stent implantation

To determine whether off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) improves survival over drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, we performed a review with meta-analysis of exclusive OPCAB versus DES. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2013 using Web-based search engines (PubMed and OVID). Studies that met the following criteria were considered for inclusion: the design was a randomized controlled trial or observational comparative study; the study population was patients with any coronary artery disease; patients were assigned to OPCAB versus DES and outcomes included all-cause mortality at ≥1 years. Our exhaustive search identified no randomized trial and 10 observational studies of OPCAB versus DES. A pooled analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between OPCAB and DES (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.15; P = 0.55). In general, exclusion of any single study from the analysis did not substantially alter the overall result of our analysis. There was no evidence of significant publication bias. In conclusion, OPCAB may not improve survival over DES despite greater number of treated vessels in OPCAB than in DES or greater number of distal anastomosis in OPCAB than that of implanted stents in DES.

Stent versus off-pump coronary bypass grafting in the second-generation drug-eluting stent era

BACKGROUND

Second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) are known to have better safety and clinical outcomes compared with the first-generation DESs. We compared the clinical results of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using second-generation DESs.

METHODS

The study enrolled 1,821 patients with triple-vessel or left main coronary disease, or both, who underwent OPCAB or PCI with second-generation DESs from 2008 to 2011. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and target vessel revascularization, were retrospectively compared between the two groups in a real-world and in a matched population (n = 1,294). Follow-up duration was 23.0 ± 13.0 months (range, 0 to 56 months).

RESULTS

The postprocedural mortality rate was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.384). The overall rate of MAACEs was 7.3% in the PCI group and 3.8% in the OPCAB group (p = 0.001). The 3-year rate of freedom from MACCEs was 88.4% ± 1.5% in the PCI group and 94.9% ± 1.0% in the OPCAB group (p < 0.001). In a matched population comparison, the 3-year rate of freedom from a MACCE was 87.5% ± 2.0% in the PCI group and 95.3% ± 1.2% in the OPCAB group (p = 0.001). The determining factors were nonfatal myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. The OPCAB group showed a superior rate of freedom from MACCEs in the triple-vessel (p = 0.008) and left main subset analysis (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The OPCAB showed superior outcomes in triple-vessel or left main disease, or both, compared with PCI in the second-generation DES era after 23 months of follow-up. Nonfatal myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization were the determining factors. Longer follow-up with randomization will clarify our results.

Anaortic, total-arterial, off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: why bother?

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care for multi-vessel coronary disease. However, the increased rate of peri-operative stroke reported after surgery compared to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains of concern. Anaortic, total-arterial, off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) grafting is a technique that offers the main advantages of surgical revascularisation with a rate of stroke that is equivalent to that of PCI. Some recent trials comparing conventional on-pump CABG with OPCAB have questioned the efficacy of the off-pump technique - these are most often performed with manipulation of the ascending aorta. We review the potential benefits of the anaortic, total-arterial OPCAB technique to explain why it is being employed by an increasing number of surgeons.