Limitations of Repeat Revascularization as an Outcome Measure

Machine learning-based coronary artery calcium score predicted from clinical variables as a prognostic indicator in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography

OBJECTIVES

Utilising readily available clinical variables, we aimed to develop and validate a novel machine learning (ML) model to predict severe coronary calcification, and further assessed its prognostic significance.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled patients who underwent coronary CT angiography and subsequent invasive coronary angiography. Multiple ML algorithms were used to train the models for predicting severe coronary calcification (cardiac CT-measured coronary artery calcium [CT-CAC] score ≥ 400). The ML-based CAC (ML-CAC) score derived from the ML predictive probability was stratified into quartiles for prognostic analysis. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

RESULTS

Overall, 5785 patients were divided into training (80%) and test sets (20%). For clinical practicability, we selected the nine-feature support vector machine model with good and satisfactory performance regarding both discrimination and calibration based on five repetitions of the 10-fold cross-validation in the training set (mean AUC = 0.715, Brier score = 0.202), and based on the test in the test set (AUC = 0.753, Brier score = 0.191). In the test set cohort (n = 1137), the primary endpoint was observed in 50 (4.4%) patients during a median 2.8 years' follow-up. The ML-CAC system was significantly associated with an increased risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio for trend 2.26, 95% CI 1.35-3.79, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the prognostic value between the ML-CAC and CT-CAC systems (C-index, 0.67 vs. 0.69; p = 0.618).

CONCLUSION

ML-CAC score predicted from clinical variables can serve as a novel prognostic indicator in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

In patients referred for invasive coronary angiography who have not undergone preoperative CT-measured coronary artery calcium scoring, machine learning-based coronary artery calcium score assessment can serve as an alternative for predicting the prognosis.

KEY POINTS

• The coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, a solid prognostic indicator, can be predicted using non-CT methods. • We developed a machine learning (ML)-CAC model utilising nine clinical variables to predict severe coronary calcification. • The ML-CAC system offers significant prognostic value in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography.

Drug-coated balloon angioplasty with rescue stenting versus intended stenting for the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions (REC-CAGEFREE I): an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The long-term impact of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of DCB angioplasty with rescue stenting to intended drug-eluting stent (DES) deployment for patients with de novo, non-complex coronary artery lesions.

METHODS

REC-CAGEFREE I was an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 43 sites in China. After successful lesion pre-dilatation, patients aged 18 years or older with de novo, non-complex coronary artery disease (irrespective of target vessel diameter) and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based centralised system with block randomisation (block size of two, four, or six) and stratified by site, to paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty with the option of rescue stenting due to an unsatisfactory result (DCB group) or intended deployment of second-generation thin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents (DES group). The primary outcome was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE; including cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically and physiologically indicated target lesion revascularisation) assessed at 24 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to treatment). Non-inferiority was established if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the absolute risk difference was smaller than 2·68%. Safety was assessed in the ITT population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04561739. It is closed to accrual and extended follow-up is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 5, 2021, and May 1, 2022, 2272 patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group (1133 [50%]) or the DES group (1139 [50%]). Median age at the time of randomisation was 62 years (IQR 54-69), 1574 (69·3%) of 2272 were male, 698 (30·7%) were female, and all patients were of Chinese ethnicity. 106 (9·4%) of 1133 patients in the DCB group received rescue DES after unsatisfactory DCB angioplasty. As of data cutoff (May 1, 2024), median follow-up was 734 days (IQR 731-739). At 24 months, the DoCE occurred in 72 (6·4%) of 1133 patients in the DCB group and 38 (3·4%) of 1139 in the DES group, with a risk difference of 3·04% in the cumulative event rate (upper boundary of the one-sided 95% CI 4·52; pnon-inferiority=0·65; two-sided 95% CI 1·27-4·81; p=0·0008); the criterion for non-inferiority was not met. During intervention, no acute vessel closures occurred in the DCB group and one (0·1%) of 1139 patients in the DES group had acute vessel closure. Periprocedural myocardial infarction occurred in ten (0·9%) of 1133 patients in the DCB group and nine (0·8%) in the DES group.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with de novo, non-complex coronary artery disease, irrespective of vessel diameter, a strategy of DCB angioplasty with rescue stenting did not achieve non-inferiority compared with the intended DES implantation in terms of the DoCE at 2 years, which indicates that DES should remain the preferred treatment for this patient population.

FUNDING

Xijing Hospital and Shenqi Medical.

TRANSLATION

For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Expanding revascularization trials to women and underserved minorities and shifting to patient-centered outcomes: RECHARGE trials program

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review the limited available evidence informing coronary revascularization decisions in women and minorities, and introduce the RECHARGE trial program, which consists of two separate but integrated parallel multicenter, randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), one exclusively enrolling women (RECHARGE:Women) and one exclusively enrolling Black or Hispanic patients (RECHARGE:Minorities).

RECENT FINDINGS

The extensive evidence base supporting coronary revascularization suffers from under-representation of women, minorities and minoritized populations, and the use of heterogeneous primary composite outcomes whose components have varying strengths of association with prognosis and quality-of-life (QOL). In RECHARGE, participants will be followed for up to 10 years, with QOL assessments at baseline, 30 days, 3 months, every 6 months for 3 years, and annually thereafter. The primary endpoint is the hierarchical composite of time to all-cause mortality, time-averaged change from baseline in the physical component of the SF-12v2 physical summary score, and time-averaged change from baseline in the mental component of the SF12v2 summary score, evaluated using a win ratio. Independently adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events and disease-specific QoL will be secondary endpoints.

SUMMARY

The RECHARGE trials are the first revascularization trials to enroll exclusively women and minority patients and to use patient-centered outcomes as their primary outcome.

The effect of treatment timing on repeat revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease

Objectives

In patients with stable ischemic heart disease, there is no evidence for the effect of revascularization treatment timing on the need for repeat procedures. We aimed to determine if repeat revascularizations differed among patients who received coronary artery bypass graft surgery after the time recommended by physicians compared with those who had timely percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods

We identified 25,520 British Columbia residents 60 years or older who underwent first-time nonemergency revascularization for angiographically proven, stable left main or multivessel ischemic heart disease between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2016. We estimated unadjusted and adjusted cumulative incidence functions for repeat revascularization, in the presence of death as a competing risk, after index revascularization or last staged percutaneous coronary intervention for patients undergoing delayed coronary artery bypass grafting compared with timely percutaneous coronary intervention.

Results

After adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weights, at 3 years, patients who underwent delayed coronary artery bypass grafting had a statistically significant lower cumulative incidence of a repeat revascularization compared with patients who received timely percutaneous coronary intervention (4.84% delayed coronary artery bypass grafting, 12.32% timely percutaneous coronary intervention; subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.16, 95% CI, 0.04-0.65).

Conclusions

Patients who undergo delayed coronary artery bypass grafting have a lower cumulative incidence of repeat revascularization than patients who undergo timely percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients who want to wait to receive coronary artery bypass grafting will see the benefit of lower repeat revascularization over percutaneous coronary intervention unaffected by a delay in treatment.

Clinically Driven Revascularization in High-Risk Patients Treated With Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI: Insights from the Randomized TWILIGHT Trial

Repeat coronary revascularization is a common adverse event after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. This analysis aimed to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy on repeat clinically driven revascularization (CDR). In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, high-risk patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomly allocated to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point of this analysis was CDR within 12 months after randomization. The key secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or CDR, and net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including the individual components of MACCEs and clinically relevant bleeding. The analysis was performed in the per-protocol population. CDR occurred in 473 of 7,039 patients and was associated with a significantly higher risk of subsequent all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82 to 4.67). Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a similar 12-month risk of CDR (7.1% vs 6.6%; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30, p = 0.363) and MACCEs (8.9% vs 8.6%; HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, p = 0.619), and a lower risk of NACEs (12.2% vs 14.6%; HR 0.83 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, p = 0.004) than ticagrelor plus aspirin. In conclusion, among high-risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a similar risk of CDR and MACCEs and a decrease of NACEs (TWILIGHT: NCT02270242).

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI or Coronary Bypass Surgery for 3-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: 3-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 3 Trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary disease not involving the left main have shown significantly lower rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke after CABG. These studies did not routinely use current-generation drug-eluting stents or fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide PCI.

METHODS

FAME 3 (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, international, randomized trial involving patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (not involving the left main coronary artery) in 48 centers worldwide. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FFR-guided PCI using zotarolimus drug-eluting stents or CABG. The prespecified key secondary end point of the trial reported here is the 3-year incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 1500 patients were randomized to FFR-guided PCI or CABG. Follow-up was achieved in >96% of patients in both groups. There was no difference in the incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke after FFR-guided PCI compared with CABG (12.0% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.3 [95% CI, 0.98-1.83]; P=0.07). The rates of death (4.1% versus 3.9%; HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6-1.7]; P=0.88) and stroke (1.6% versus 2.0%; HR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4-1.7]; P=0.56) were not different. MI occurred more frequently after PCI (7.0% versus 4.2%; HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1-2.7]; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

At 3-year follow-up, there was no difference in the incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke after FFR-guided PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents compared with CABG. There was a higher incidence of MI after PCI compared with CABG, with no difference in death or stroke. These results provide contemporary data to allow improved shared decision-making between physicians and patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02100722.

Impact of repeat revascularization within 5 years on 10-year mortality after percutaneous or surgical revascularization

BACKGROUND

The SYNTAX trial demonstrated negative impact of repeat revascularization (RR) on 5-year outcomes following PCI/CABG in patients with three-vessel(3VD) and/or left main coronary artery disease(LMCAD). We aimed to investigate the impact of RR within 5 years, on 10-year mortality in patients with 3VD and/or LMCAD after PCI/CABG.

METHODS

The SYNTAXES study evaluated the vital status out to 10 years of patients with 3VD and/or LMCAD. Patients were stratified by RR within 5 years and randomized treatment. The association between RR within 5 years and 10-year mortality was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 330 out of 1800 patients (18.3%) underwent RR within 5 years. RR occurred more frequently after initial PCI than after initial CABG (25.9% vs. 13.7%, p < 0.001). Overall, 10-year mortality was comparable between patients undergoing RR and those not (28.2% vs. 26.1%, adjusted HR: 1.17, 95%CI 0.93-1.48, p = 0.187). In the PCI arm, RR was associated with a trend toward higher 10-year mortality (adjusted HR: 1.29, 95%CI 0.97-1.72, p = 0.075), while in the CABG arm, the trend was opposite (adjusted HR: 0.74, 95%CI 0.46-1.20, p = 0.219). Among patients requiring RR, those who underwent PCI as initial revascularization had a higher risk of 10-year mortality compared to initial CABG (33.5% vs. 17.6%, adjusted HR: 2.09, 95%CI 1.21-3.61, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

In the SYNTAXES study, RR within 5 years had no impact on 10-year all-cause death in the population overall. Among patients requiring any repeat procedures, 10-year mortality was higher after initial treatment with PCI than after CABG. These exploratory findings should be investigated with larger populations in future studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ; SYNTAXES Unique identifier: NCT03417050. URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ; SYNTAX Unique identifier: NCT00114972.

[Myocardial revascularization in chronic coronary artery disease. State of art]

The review addresses debatable issues of myocardial revascularization in chronic forms of ischemic heart disease, shows major differences between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting in terms of long-term prognosis, and the dependence of the results on the clinical profile of the disease. The review of current publications demonstrates advantages of open surgery in long-term survival and prevention of adverse outcomes in target groups of patients.

Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis

The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) using electronic databases through January 1, 2022. We performed a random-effects meta-regression between repeat revascularization rates after PCI (absolute risk difference [%] between PCI and CABG or OMT) with the relative risks (RR) of mortality. We assessed surrogacy of repeat revascularization for mortality using the coefficient of determination (R2), with threshold of 0.80. In 33 trials (21,735 patients), at median follow-up of 4 (2-7) years, repeat revascularization was higher after PCI than CABG [RR: 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-3.03)], but lower vs OMT [RR: 0.64 (0.46-0.88)]. Overall, meta-regression showed that repeat revascularization rates after PCI had no significant association with all-cause mortality [RR: 1.01 (0.99-1.02); R2=0.10) or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 1.01 (CI: 0.99-1.03); R2=0.09]. In PCI vs CABG (R2=0.0) or PCI vs OMT trials (R2=0.28), repeat revascularization did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (R2=0.0). We observed concordant results for subgroup analyses (enrollment time, follow-up, sample size, risk of bias, stent types, and coronary artery disease), and multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, risk of bias, MI, and follow-up duration. In summary, this meta-regression did not establish repeat revascularization after PCI as a surrogate for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are widely used in the treatment of coronary heart disease, but the best revascularization method for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients is still controversial. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), together with CABG and PCI, have been proved to be feasible methods, but the long-term effect of HCR is not as clear as CABG.

METHOD

By October 2020, we retrieved articles from PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases. The main results are based on major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE).

RESULT

A total of 18 articles (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes of MACCE in the HCR group at perioperative, short-term (30 days to 1 year), medium-term (1 year to 5 years) and long-term (5 years and above) follow-up period were similar to those in the CABG group. The mortality rates of patients in perioperative, short-term and medium-term follow-up were similar to those in the CABG group, but lower than that in the CABG group at long-term follow-up (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.69, p = 0.002). The revascularization rate was higher in the HCR group during the perioperative period (OR = 3.50, 95% CI 2.07-5.94, p < 0.001), short-term (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.62-6.64, p < 0.001) and mid-term follow-up (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.64-4.92, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results reveal that HCR is a safe and therapeutically effective alternative in treatments for MVD patients. It has not only less short-term adverse effect, but also better long-term effect, especially in death.

The effect of diabetes on surgical versus percutaneous left main revascularization outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The optimal method of coronary revascularization for diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is controversial in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DES-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for LMCAD in DM patients and tested for effect measure modification (EMM) by diabetes for adverse events. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing CABG to DES-based PCI including DM patients with LMCAD published up to March 1, 2021. We completed separate random-effects meta-analyses for four RCTs (4356 patients, mean follow-up of 4.9 years) and six observational studies (9360 patients, mean follow-up of 5.2 years).

Results

In RCTs among DM patients, DES-based PCI, compared to CABG, was associated with a 30% increased relative risk (RR) (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09–1.56, I² = 0%), while among non-DM patients, there was a 25% increased relative risk (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07–1.44, I² = 0%) for the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned revascularization (MACCE). There was no evidence of EMM (p-value for interaction = 0.70). The mean weighted SYNTAX score was 25.7. In observational studies, there was no difference between DES-based PCI and CABG for all-cause mortality in patients with DM (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.91–1.40, I² = 0%).

Conclusions

CABG was superior to PCI for LMCAD in RCTs in DM patients for MACCE. Heart teams may consider DM as one of the many components in the clinical decision-making process, but may not want to consider DM as a primary deciding factor between DES-based PCI and CABG for LMCAD with low to intermediate anatomical complexity in the other coronary arteries.

Study registration

CRD42021246931 (PROSPERO).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01795-w.

Ten-Year All-Cause Death According to Completeness of Revascularization in Patients With Three-Vessel Disease or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the SYNTAX Extended Survival Study

BACKGROUND

Ten-year all-cause death according to incomplete (IR) versus complete revascularization (CR) has not been fully investigated in patients with 3-vessel disease and left main coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

The SYNTAX Extended Survival study (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery: SYNTAX Extended Survival [SYNTAXES]) evaluated vital status up to 10 years in patients who were originally enrolled in the SYNTAX trial. In the present substudy, outcomes of the CABG CR group were compared with the CABG IR, PCI CR, and PCI IR groups. In addition, in the PCI cohort, the residual SYNTAX score (rSS) was used to quantify the extent of IR and to assess its association with fatal late outcome. The rSS of 0 suggests CR, whereas a rSS>0 identifies the degree of IR.

RESULTS

IR was more frequently observed in patients with PCI versus CABG (56.6% versus 36.8%) and more common in those with 3-vessel disease than left main coronary artery disease in both the PCI arm (58.5% versus 53.8%) and the CABG arm (42.8% versus 27.5%). Patients undergoing PCI with CR had no significant difference in 10-year all-cause death compared with those undergoing CABG (22.2% for PCI with CR versus 24.3% for CABG with IR versus 23.8% for CABG with CR). In contrast, those with PCI and IR had a significantly higher risk of all-cause death at 10 years compared with CABG and CR (33.5% versus 23.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.15-1.91]). When patients with PCI were stratified according to the rSS, those with a rSS≤8 had no significant difference in all-cause death at 10 years as the other terciles (22.2% for rSS=0 versus 23.9% for rSS>0-4 versus 28.9% for rSS>4-8), whereas a rSS>8 had a significantly higher risk of 10-year all-cause death than those undergoing PCI with CR (50.1% versus 22.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.40 [95% CI, 2.13-5.43]).

CONCLUSIONS

IR is common after PCI, and the degree of incompleteness was associated with 10-year mortality. If it is unlikely that complete (or nearly complete; rSS<8) revascularization can be achieved with PCI in patients with 3-vessel disease, CABG should be considered. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00114972. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03417050.

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous or surgical treatment in left main disease

INTRODUCTION

Long-term efficacy and safety of either surgical or percutaneous treatment left main coronary artery disease treatment is lacking.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the most updated randomized clinical trials that compared the efficacy of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the Left Main Coronary Artery (LMCA) disease. It was also conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, reference lists of relevant articles, and Medline. The search utilized the following terms: "left main PCI versus CABG," "drug-eluting stents," "bypass surgery" and "left main stenting." The search of articles compatible with our inclusion and exclusion criteria was performed from inception through April 2020 and returned a combined total of 304 articles.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 6 studies, providing data on 5812 patients. The mean follow-up was 6.7 years. PCI was associated with an increased risk of major vascular events (MACE) (IRR 1.24, 95% CI [1.03-1.67], P<0.01), and coronary revascularization (IRR 1.69, 95% CI [1.42-2.03], P<0.01) compared to CABG. Furthermore, all-cause death, MI and stroke events were not statistically different between the two therapeutic revascularization methodologies (IRR 1.06, 95% CI [0.90-1.24], P=0.47, IRR 1.35, 95% CI [0.84-2.16], P=0.03 and IRR 0.66, 95% CI [0.43-1.01], P=0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

LMCA PCI has an overall same survival compared to CABG in the long term follow-up. Nevertheless, MACE and revascularization events were more frequent in PCI compared to CABG.

Mortality after drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

The optimal method of revascularization for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is controversial. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has traditionally been considered the gold standard therapy, and recent randomized trials comparing CABG with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) have reported conflicting outcomes. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis comparing CABG to PCI with DES for the treatment of LMCAD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing PCI with DES vs. CABG in patients with LMCAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization. All analyses were by intention-to-treat. There were five eligible trials in which 4612 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 67.1 months. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the risk of all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.32; P = 0.779] or cardiac death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79-1.34; P = 0.817). There were also no significant differences in the risk of stroke (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.35-1.50; P = 0.400) or MI (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.96-1.56; P = 0.110). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased risk of unplanned revascularization (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.49-2.02; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The totality of randomized clinical trial evidence demonstrated similar long-term mortality after PCI with DES compared with CABG in patients with LMCAD. Nor were there significant differences in cardiac death, stroke, or MI between PCI and CABG. Unplanned revascularization procedures were less common after CABG compared with PCI. These findings may inform clinical decision-making between cardiologists, surgeons, and patients with LMCAD.

Long-Term Outcomes of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Currently, DES is a reasonable treatment option for LMCA disease but CABG continues to be first-line treatment. Multiple randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have compared outcomes between these two treatment modalities. Recently, these trials published their long-term results with conflicting findings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs that compared DES vs CABG in patients with LMCA disease. We only included trials with follow up duration of at least 5 years. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included risk of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

We included a total of 4 RCTs. The median-weighted follow up period was 6.5 years. There was no significant difference between DES and CABG in all-cause mortality (Risk ratio (RR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.31; p = 0.28), risk of cardiac death (RR of 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.38; p = 0.56), total MI (RR of 1.22, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.56; p = 0.11), and stroke (RR of 0.85, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.57; p = 0.60). The risk of repeat revascularization (RR of 1.75, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.03; p < 0.00001), and non-periprocedural MI (RR of 2.13, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.97; p < 0.00001) were significantly higher in the DES arm.

CONCLUSIONS

DES has similar long-term outcomes compared to CABG in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, total MI and stroke; but was associated with a higher risk of repeat revascularization, and non-periprocedural MI.

Three-year clinical outcome of unprotected left main coronary artery disease patients complicated with chronic kidney disease treated by coronary artery bypass graft versus percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) in unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) patients complicated with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

Three hundred sixty-eight ULMCAD patients complicated with CKD who underwent first ever CABG (n = 207) or PCI with DES (n = 161) were recruited in this prospective cohort study. Patients were followed up to MACCE occurrence or 36 months after operations, and accumulating MACCE occurrence was calculated.

RESULTS

Accumulating MACCE occurrence was decreased in CABG group compared with PCI group (P = 0.007). Subgroup analysis showed that CKD stage positively correlated with accumulating MACCE occurrence in total patients (P = 0.006) and in PCI-treated patients (P = 0.018), but not in CABG-treated patients (P = 0.217). Further univariate Cox's regression model displayed that CABG (versus (vs.) PCI) (P = 0.008) was associated with lower accumulating MACCE occurrence, while age (≥ 65 years) (P = 0.048), hyperlipidemia (P = 0.013), diabetes (P = 0.012), previous heart failure (P = 0.011), previous stroke (P = 0.030), LVEF < 50% (P = 0.048), higher CKD stage (P = 0.002), and more diseased vessels (P = 0.022) were associated with increased accumulating MACCE occurrence. Forward stepwise multivariate Cox's regression model disclosed that CABG (vs. PCI) (P = 0.002) independently predicted decreased accumulating MACCE occurrence, whereas hyperlipidemia (P = 0.033), diabetes (P = 0.002), higher CKD stage (P = 0.001), and more diseased vessels (P = 0.009) independently predicted elevated accumulating MACCE occurrence.

CONCLUSION

CABG could be considered as the preferred treatment strategy compared with PCI with DES in ULMCAD patients complicated with CKD.