Surgical Revascularization in Older Adults with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

Determinants of the Downward Trend in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Among Patients With Multivessel Disease and Class-I Indication for Surgery

Introduction

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is the most effective coronary revascularization procedure, and it has been endorsed by many trials and studies over the years. However, due to CABG's immediate adverse effects, patients tend to prefer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary revascularization over it. This article focuses on the recent downtrend in CABG procedures for revascularization among patients for whom it is indicated. This study’s main objective was to identify the factors responsible for the downtrend in patients undergoing CABG despite a clear indication for it in those with multivessel diseases.

Methods

This study was conducted at the Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan, from August 1, 2020, to January 1, 2021. A total of 340 patients with a class-I indication (presence of conditions regarding which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is beneficial, useful, and effective) for CABG were enrolled in the study. Data related to all the variables were collected from patients and hospital records through an adequately designed proforma. For analysis, we applied the chi-square test to elaborate on the data for information and point biserial correlation to rule out the effect of age and weight on CABG’s downward trend.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 58.77 ± 9.54 years; 65.88% were male, and 34.12% were female. Only 17.65% of the patients underwent CABG; 71.47% opted for medical treatment, and 9.41% underwent PCI. Out of the 280 patients who did not undergo CABG, 26.76% had financial issues; 23.82% were high-risk patients and hence refused surgeries by the surgeons; 20.59% of patients were not willing to undergo surgery; 7.94% were on the waiting list, and 3.24% had deranged renal function tests (RFTs).

Conclusions

A limited number of patients underwent revascularization therapy even though they had clear indications for CABG. The high-risk status of patients, patients' unwillingness, and the cost of the procedure were the primary reasons behind the downtrend in CABG procedures among patients with a clear indication for the same.

Comparing the effectiveness of revascularization interventions with medical therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Determining the effectiveness of cardiovascular interventions plays an important role in reimbursement decisions, health care pricing, and providing clinical guidance on the use of existing clinical technologies. This study aimed to review and analyze the effectiveness of revascularization interventions (CABG and PCI) compared to medical therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Methods: Different databases were searched up to December 2017. The articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality of all studies was evaluated by Jadad score and relevant checklists. The I2 test was used to test heterogeneity. Also, to integrate the results of similar studies, meta-analysis was done using STATA software.

Results: A total of 18 studies were included. Based on the random effects model, the overall results of comparing the effectiveness of revascularization interventions with medical therapy were as follow: 38.94 [95% CI: 26.95-50.94, p<0.001, I² = 99.6%, p<0.001], [75.31, 95% CI: 74.06-76.57, p<0.001, I²= 88.8, p<0.001], and 75.76 [95% CI: 71.99-79.53, p<0.001, I2= 99.2, p<0.001] for cardiac mortality rate, quality of life, and 5-year survival, respectively. Also, in patient satisfaction index, revascularization interventions were shown to be more effective than medical therapy.

Conclusion: This study showed that revascularization interventions in all studied indices were more effective than medical therapy. Also, between revascularization interventions, PCI was more effective in cardiovascular mortality and 5-year survival than CABG in terms of quality of life. Moreover, CABG was more effective than PCI. In patient satisfaction index, the results of the 2 included studies were contradictory.

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.