Comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-world Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial population

Revascularization in Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier Reconstructed Individual Patient Data

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease is a common etiology of ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), for which the optimal revascularization strategy remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) results in greater survival advantage in patients with LVSD.

METHODS

A study-level (SLMA) and reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis (rIPDMA) from Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves were performed. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane was conducted for observational and randomized studies published after 2010 that compared PCI to CABG in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at longest follow-up. The secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, repeat revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at longest follow-up.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (11 observational, three randomized, 13,063 patients) were eligible for SLMA. Seven contained digitizable KM curves from which individual patient data could be reconstructed. Study-level analysis found PCI associated with increased all-cause mortality (Hazard Ratio 1.41 [95% Confidence Interval 1.18-1.69]), MI (2.10 [1.62-2.72]), repeat revascularization (2.39 [1.37-4.17]) and MACCE (1.58 [1.23-2.03]), without significant differences in stroke (0.86 [0.39-1.92]) or cardiovascular mortality (1.42 [0.78-2.59]). In the rIPDMA, PCI resulted in increased all-cause mortality (1.57 [1.34-1.87]) and repeat revascularization (3.63 [3.12-4.21]) but overall lower risk of stroke (0.62 [0.39-0.99]) due to fewer events during initial follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ischemic LVSD, PCI was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and repeat revascularization than CABG but lower risk of short-term stroke.

Comparison of mid-term mortality after surgical, supported or unsupported percutaneous revascularization in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction: A direct and network meta-analysis of adjusted observational studies and randomized-controlled

INTRODUCTION

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains to be elucidated. The aim of this paper is to compare the mid-term mortality rate among patients with severely reduced ejection fraction (EF) and complex coronary artery disease who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Impella support, or without.

METHODS

Randomized control trials and propensity-adjusted observational studies including patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and severe EF reduction undergoing revascularization were selected. Different revascularization strategies (CABG, supported PCI, and PCI without Impella) were compared in pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was mid-term mortality (within the first year after revascularization).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, mostly observational (17,841 patients; 6779 patients treated with CABG, 8478 treated with PCI without Impella, and 2584 treated with Impella-supported PCI) were included in this analysis. The median age was 67.8 years (IQR 65-70.1), 21.2% (IQR 16.4-26%) of patients were female sex, and a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors was noted across the entire population. At pairwise analysis, CABG and PCI without Impella showed similar one-year all-cause mortality (10.6% [IQR 7.5-12.6%] vs 12% [IQR 8.4-11.5%]) RR 0.85 CI 0.67-1.09, while supported PCI reduced one-year all-cause mortality compared to PCI without Impella (9.4% [IQR 5.7-12.5%] vs 10.6% [IQR 8.9-10.7%]) RR 0.77 CI 0.6-0.89. At network meta-analysis, supported PCI showed better results (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.94) compared to CABG.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found that supported PCI may have a benefit over standard PCI in patients in direct comparison, and over CABG from indirect comparison, and with HFrEF undergoing revascularization. Further RCTs are needed to confirm this result. (PROSPERO CRD42023425667).

STICH3C: Rationale and Study Protocol

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the recommended mode of revascularization in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (iLVSD) and multivessel disease. However, contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes have improved with the integration of novel technologies and refinement of revascularization strategies, and PCI is often used in clinical practice in this population. There is a lack of evidence from randomized trials comparing contemporary state-of-the-art PCI versus CABG for the treatment of iLVSD and multivessel disease. This was the impetus for the STICH3C trial (Canadian CABG or PCI in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy), described here.

METHODS

The STICH3C trial is a prospective, unblinded, international, multicenter trial with an expected sample size of 754 participants from ≈45 centers. Patients with multivessel/left main coronary artery disease and iLVSD with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% considered by the local Heart Team appropriate for and amenable to revascularization by both modes of revascularization will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to state-of-the-art PCI or CABG.

RESULTS

The primary end point is the composite of death from any cause, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, urgent repeat revascularization, or heart failure readmission, summarized as a time-to-event outcome. The key hierarchical end point is time to death and frequency of hospitalizations for heart failure. The key safety outcome is a composite of major adverse events. Disease-specific quality-of-life and health economics measures will be compared between groups. Participants will be followed for a median of 5 years, with a minimum follow-up of 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

STICH3C will directly inform patients, clinicians, and international practice guidelines about the efficacy and safety of CABG versus PCI in patients with iLVSD. The results will provide novel and broad evidence, including clinical events, health status, and economic assessments, to guide care for patients with iLVSD and severe coronary artery disease.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique identifier: NCT05427370.

Hot spot imaging in cardiovascular diseases: an information statement from SNMMI, ASNC, and EANM

This information statement from the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and European Association of Nuclear Medicine describes the performance, interpretation, and reporting of hot spot imaging in nuclear cardiology. The field of nuclear cardiology has historically focused on cold spot imaging for the interpretation of myocardial ischemia and infarction. Hot spot imaging has been an important part of nuclear medicine, particularly for oncology or infection indications, and the use of hot spot imaging in nuclear cardiology continues to expand. This document focuses on image acquisition and processing, methods of quantification, indications, protocols, and reporting of hot spot imaging. Indications discussed include myocardial viability, myocardial inflammation, device or valve infection, large vessel vasculitis, valve calcification and vulnerable plaques, and cardiac amyloidosis. This document contextualizes the foundations of image quantification and highlights reporting in each indication for the cardiac nuclear imager.

Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with heart failure with a midrange ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improves survival in patients with heart failure and severely reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF). Limited data exist regarding adverse cardiovascular event rates after CABG in patients with heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF; LVEF > 40% and < 55%).

METHODS

We analyzed data on isolated CABG patients from the Veterans Affairs national database (2010-2019). We stratified patients into control (normal LVEF and no heart failure), HFmrEF, and heart failure with reduced LVEF (HFrEF) groups. We compared all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization rates between groups with a Cox model and recurrent events analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

In 6533 veterans, HFmrEF and HFrEF was present in 1715 (26.3%) and 566 (8.6%) respectively; the control group had 4252 (65.1%) patients. HFrEF patients were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (59%), insulin therapy (36%), and previous myocardial infarction (31%). Anemia was more prevalent in patients with HFrEF (49%) as was a lower serum albumin (mean, 3.6 mg/dL). Compared with the control group, a higher risk of death was observed in the HFmrEF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.3 [1.2-1.5)] and HFrEF (HR, 1.5 [1.2-1.7]) groups. HFmrEF patients had the higher risk of myocardial infarction (subdistribution HR, 1.2 [1-1.6]; P = .04). Risk of heart failure hospitalization was higher in patients with HFmrEF (HR, 4.1 [3.5-4.7]) and patients with HFrEF (HR, 7.2 [6.2-8.5]).

CONCLUSIONS

Heart failure with midrange ejection fraction negatively affects survival after CABG. These patients also experience higher rates myocardial infarction and heart failure hospitalization.

A comparison of drug-eluting stent and coronary artery bypass grafting in mildly to moderately ischemic heart failure

Aims

The best revascularization strategy for patients with ischaemic heart failure (IHF) remains unclear. Current evidence and guidelines mainly focus on patients with severe ischaemic heart failure (ejection fraction [EF] < 35%). There are limited data comparing clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with implantation of drug‐eluting stents (DESs) in patients with mild to moderate ischaemic heart failure (EF 35–50%). It is therefore unknown whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES implantation can provide comparable outcomes to CABG in these patients.

Methods and results

From January 2016 to December 2017, we enrolled patients with mildly to moderately reduced EF (35–50%) who had undergone PCI with DESs or CABG. Patients with a history of CABG, presented with acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (MI) or acute heart failure, and patients who had undergone CABG concomitant valvular or aortic surgery were excluded. Propensity score‐matching analysis was performed between the two groups. Kaplan–Meier analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression were applied to assess all‐cause mortality and individual end points. A total of 2050 patients (1330 PCIs and 720 CABGs) were included, and median follow‐up was 45 months (interquartile range 40 to 54). There were significant differences in all‐cause death between the two groups: 77 patients in the PCI group and 27 in the CABG group (DES vs. CABG: 5.8% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.045). After propensity score matching for the entire population, 601 matched pairs were obtained. The long‐term cumulative rate of all‐cause death was significantly different between the two groups (DES vs. CABG: 5.8% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.006). No differences were found in the rates of cardiac death (DES vs. CABG: 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.096), recurrent MI (DES vs. CABG: 4.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.234), and stroke (DES vs. CABG: 6.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.163). The rate of repeat coronary revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (12.1% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.000).

Conclusions

Considering the higher long‐term survival rate and lower repeat‐revascularization rate, CABG may be superior to DES implantation in patients with mildly to moderately reduced EF (35–50%) and significant CAD.

Multiple percutaneous coronary interventions worsen outcomes for subsequent surgical correction of chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation

Objective

We investigated whether or not a history of multiple percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) is associated with clinical outcomes after surgery for ischemic mitral regurgitation.

Methods

A total of 309 patients with chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% who underwent restrictive mitral annuloplasty were classified as follows: patients with no or 1 previous PCI (nonmultiple PCI group [n = 211]) and patients with 2 or more previous PCIs (multiple PCIs group [n = 98]). Mean follow-up duration was 53 ± 40 months.

Results

Before surgery, there were no intergroup differences in patient demographic characteristics except for lower estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with multiple PCIs. These patients underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting less frequently with a lower number of distal anastomoses (P < .05 for both). The 30-day mortality was 3.3% and 2.0% in the nonmultiple and multiple PCIs group, respectively (P = .72). During follow-up, there were 157 deaths. Patients with multiple PCIs showed lower 5-year survival rate (44% vs 64%; P = .002). After adjustments with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, multiple PCIs history was an independent risk factor for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% confidential interval, 1.1-1.7; P = .002). Patients with multiple PCIs showed less improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (interaction effect P < .001).

Conclusions

In patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation, a history of previous multiple PCIs was associated with increased risk of long-term postoperative mortality, with less improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of revascularization interventions for patients with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: a meta-analysis

AIMS

This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be preferred in patients with severely reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from the conception of the databases till 1 May 2020 for studies on patients with severely reduced LV ejection fraction undergoing CABG and PCI. The primary clinical endpoints were 30 day and long-term mortalities. The secondary endpoints were 30 day and long-term incidences of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, long-term cardiovascular mortality, and repeat revascularization. Eighteen studies involving 11 686 patients were analysed. Compared with PCI, CABG had lower long-term mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.80, P < 0.01], cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43-0.85, P < 0.01), MI (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.72, P < 0.01), and repeat revascularization (HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.23-0.47, P < 0.01) risk. Significant differences were not observed for long-term stroke (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.74-1.87, P = 0.49), 30 day mortality (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.89-1.56, P = 0.25), and MI (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.16-1.11, P = 0.08) risk. CABG was associated with a higher risk of stroke within 30 days (HR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.07-7.77, P = 0.04). In a subgroup analysis of propensity score-matched studies, CABG was associated with a higher long-term risk of stroke (HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.20-2.16, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severely reduced LV ejection fraction, CABG resulted in a lower mortality rate and an increased risk of stroke.

Treatment strategies in ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with ischaemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) remains controversial. We aimed to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and medical therapy (MT) in a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing any combination of PCI, CABG and MT in patients with iLVSD were analysed in a frequentist network meta-analysis (generic inverse variance method). Primary outcome was mortality at longest available follow-up. Secondary outcomes were cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and repeat revascularization (RR).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included (n = 23 633; 4 randomized controlled trials). Compared to CABG, PCI was associated with higher mortality [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.53], cardiac death (IRR 1.65, 95% CI 1.18-2.33), MI (IRR 2.18, 95% CI 1.70-2.80) and RR (IRR 3.75, 95% CI 2.89-4.85). Compared to CABG, MT was associated with higher mortality (IRR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26-1.84), cardiac death (IRR 3.83, 95% CI 2.12-6.91), MI (IRR 3.22, 95% CI 1.52-6.79) and RR (IRR 3.37, 95% CI 1.67-6.79). Compared to MT, PCI was associated with lower cardiac death (IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.78). CABG ranked as the best revascularization strategy for mortality, cardiac death, MI and RR; MT ranked as the strategy associated with the lowest incidence of stroke. Left ventricular ejection fraction, year of study, use of drug-eluting stents did not affect relative treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

CABG appears to be the best therapy for iLVSD, although mainly based on observational data. Definitive randomized controlled trials comparing CABG and PCI in iLVSD are required.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID

132414.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

PURPOSE

There is a paucity of comparative data examining the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVD).

METHODS

We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis of clinical outcomes comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass (CABG) in patients with LVD (left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤ 40%), using the random effects model. Effects size is reported as odds ratio (OR) and a 95% confidence interval. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, and a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30-day, 3-year, and long-term (6.3 ± 0.9 years) follow-ups. Seventeen studies (16 observational, 1 randomized) and 18,599 patients (CABG 9651; PCI 8948) were included.

RESULTS

PCI and CABG had comparable all-cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49-1.23) and 3 years (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91-1.21); however, PCI was associated with increased long-term morality after a mean follow-up of 6.3 ± 0.9 years (31.6% vs. 24.3%, OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.21-1.64). A similar mortality trend was observed in the subgroup of patients with EF ≤ 35%. PCI had a higher rate of repeat revascularization at 3-year and long-term follow-ups. The long-term rates of stroke and MI were comparable. PCI, on the other hand, had lower rates of stroke at 30-day and 3-year follow-ups.

CONCLUSION

CABG was associated with lower rates of long-term mortality and revascularization but higher rate of upfront stroke in patients with LVD. However, the data included consisted predominantly of observational studies, highlighting the paucity and need for randomized trials.

Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Improves Survival Without Increasing the Risk of Stroke in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure in Comparison to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis With 54,173 Patients

Objective

To evaluate whether there is any difference on the results of patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of ischemic heart failure (HF).

Methods

Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [CENTRAL/CCTR], ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online [SciELO], Literatura Latino-americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde [LILACS], and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published until February 2019. Main outcomes of interest were mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke.

Results

The search yielded 5,775 studies for inclusion. Of these, 20 articles were analyzed, and their data were extracted. The total number of patients included was 54,173, and those underwent CABG (N=29,075) or PCI (N=25098). The hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality (HR 0.763; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.678-0.859; P<0.001), myocardial infarction (HR 0.481; 95% CI 0.365-0.633; P<0.001), and repeat revascularization (HR 0.321; 95% CI 0.241-0.428; P<0.001) were lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group. The HR for stroke showed no statistically significant difference between the groups (random effect model: HR 0.879; 95% CI 0.625-1.237; P=0.459).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis found that CABG surgery remains the best option for patients with ischemic HF, without increase in the risk of stroke.

Revascularization in left ventricular dysfunction: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular dysfunction (LVD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with significant CAD and LVD are a high-risk patient population. They make up a minority of the cases from the largest, prospective coronary revascularization trials. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) Trial and its substudies are the most important and well cited in this field. The 10-year data from STICH showed that surgical revascularization was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy. Several smaller studies have confirmed that surgical revascularization carries a significant risk of short-term mortality but overall improved long-term outcomes in patients with LVD. Data from multiple observational studies further confirm that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is superior to percutaneous coronary revascularization for long-term survival and freedom from repeat revascularization in patients with LVD. We suggest that patients with LVD undergoing CABG should be considered for multiarterial grafting and that some patients may benefit from an off-pump procedure.

SUMMARY

Surgical revascularization confers a long-term survival benefit in patients with significant CAD and LVD. Further studies will be needed to precisely determine the ideal candidate for surgical versus percutaneous revascularization.

Cardiac surgery 2018 reviewed

For the year 2018, more than 22,000 published references can be found in PubMed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". As in the last 4 years, this review focusses on conventional cardiac surgery publications which provide important and interesting information especially relevant for non-surgical colleagues. Interventional techniques have been considered if they were published in the context of classic surgical techniques. We have again reviewed the fields of coronary revascularization and valve surgery and briefly touched on aortic surgery and surgery for terminal heart failure. For revascularization of complex coronary artery disease, bypass grafting was reconfirmed as gold standard and computer-tomographic angiography established equipoise for decision-making with classic angiography. For aortic valve treatment, some new longer-term outcomes from TAVI vs. SAVR trials confirmed equipoise of both treatments for high and medium risk. New information was provided for INR-management of mechanical aortic valves as well as long-term experiences for alternatives to mechanical valves (i.e., Ross and the relatively new Ozaki procedure). In the mitral and tricuspid field, prevalence data illustrate a significant amount of under-treatment for mitral and tricuspid valve regurgitation and evidence for life prolonging-effects of surgery. Finally, elongation of the ascending aorta was identified as new risk factor for aortic dissection and 2 years outcome of the newest generation of left ventricular assist devices demonstrate impressive improvements in outcome. While this article attempts to summarize the most pertinent publications, it does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. As in recent years, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery and a stimulus for in-depth reading.

Current Practice of State-of-the-Art Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Heart Failure

The best treatment for patients with ischemic heart failure (HF) is still on debate. There is growing evidence that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) benefits these patients. The current recommendations for revascularization in this context are that CABG is reasonable when it comes to decreasing morbidity and mortality rates for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%), and significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and should be considered in patients with operable coronary anatomy, regardless whether or not there is a viable myocardium (class IIb). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not have enough data to allow the panels to reach a conclusion. The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry (KorAHF) had its data released recently, showing that patients with acute HF who underwent CABG had lower death rates, more complete revascularization and less adverse outcomes compared with patients treated with PCI. Recent ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization clearly recommended CABG as the first choice of revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acceptable surgical risk to improve prognosis in this scenario of left ventricular dysfunction. However, a high peri-procedural risk must be compared with the benefit of late mortality, and pros and cons of each strategy (either PCI or CABG) must be weighed in the decision-making process. Spurred on by the publication of the above-mentioned article and the release of new guidelines, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization options in patients with HF.

Predialysis coronary revascularization and postdialysis mortality

Objectives

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with better survival than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) and End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). However, the optimal strategy for coronary artery revascularization in advanced CKD patients who transition to ESRD is unclear.

Methods

We examined a contemporary national cohort of 971 US veterans with incident ESRD, who underwent first CABG or PCI up to 5 years prior to dialysis initiation. We examined the association of a history of CABG versus PCI with all-cause mortality following transition to dialysis, using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for time between procedure and dialysis initiation, socio-demographics, comorbidities and medications.

Results

582 patients underwent CABG and 389 patients underwent PCI. The mean age was 66±8 years, 99% of patients were male, 79% were white, 19% were African Americans, and 84% were diabetics. The all-cause post-dialysis mortality rates after CABG and PCI were 229/1000 patient-years (PY) [95% CI: 205-256] and 311/1000PY [95% CI: 272-356], respectively. Compared to PCI, patients who underwent CABG had 34% lower risk of death [multivariable adjusted Hazard Ratio (95% CI) 0.66 (0.51-0.86), p=0.002] after initiation of dialysis. Results were similar in all subgroups of patients stratified by age, race, type of intervention, presence/absence of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and diabetes.

Conclusion

CABG in advanced CKD patients was associated lower risk of death after initiation of dialysis compared to PCI.