Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary bypass surgery for coronary artery disease: A Bayesian perspective

OBJECTIVES

Coronary revascularization is frequently performed for coronary artery disease (CAD). This study aims to assess the totality of randomized evidence comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for CAD.

METHODS

A systematic search was applied to 3 electronic databases, including randomized trials comparing DES-PCI with CABG for CAD with 5-year follow-up. A Bayesian hierarchical meta-analytic model was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 5 years; secondary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. End points were reported in median relative risks (RRs) and absolute risk differences, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Kaplan-Meier curves were used to reconstruct individual patient data.

RESULTS

Six studies comprising 8269 patients (DES-PCI, n = 4134; CABG, n = 4135) were included. All-cause mortality at 5 years was increased with DES-PCI (median RR, 1.23; 95% CrI, 1.01-1.45), with a median absolute risk difference of +2.3% (95% CrI, 0.1%-4.5%). For stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, the median RRs were 0.79 (95% CrI, 0.54-1.25), 1.84 (95% CrI, 1.23-2.75), and 1.80 (95% CrI, 1.51-2.16) for DES-PCI, respectively. In a sample of 1000 patients undergoing DES-PCI instead of CABG for CAD, a median of 23 additional deaths, 46 myocardial infarctions, and 85 repeat revascularizations occurred at 5 years, whereas 10 strokes were prevented.

CONCLUSIONS

The current data suggest a clinically relevant benefit of CABG over DES-PCI at 5 years in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, despite an increased risk of stroke. These findings may guide the heart-team and the shared decision-making process.

Association between quality of discharge teaching and self-management in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: A chain mediation model

AIMS

To examine chain mediating effect of discharge readiness and self-efficacy between quality of discharge teaching and self-management in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Although self-management after PCI has significant benefits in controlling risk factors and delaying disease progression, the status of self-management remains unoptimistic. A large number of studies have explored the close relationship between the quality of discharge teaching and patients self-management, but little is known about the underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

The cross-sectional samples was collected from a tertiary hospital in China. Self-reported questionnaires were used to assess quality of discharge teaching, discharge readiness, self-efficacy and self-management. Pearson correlation analysis and mediation effect analysis were used for statistical analysis.

REPORTING METHOD

The study used the STROBE checklist for reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients with a mean age of 64.99 ± 11.32 (34-85) were included. The mean score of self-management was 88.41 ± 11.82. Quality of discharge teaching, discharge readiness, self-efficacy and self-management were all positively correlated. Mediation effect analysis showed that the mediating effects of discharge readiness, self-efficacy, discharge readiness and self-efficacy between quality of discharge teaching and self-management were 0.157, 0.177 and 0.049, respectively, accounting for 21.96%, 24.76% and 6.85% of the total effect.

CONCLUSION

The quality of discharge teaching for patients after PCI not only directly affects self-management, but also can indirectly affect self-management through discharge readiness and self-efficacy.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

To improve the life quality of patients after PCI, medical staff should pay attention to the influence of self-management of quality of discharge teaching, and develop intervention strategies based on the path of discharge readiness and self-efficacy.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Questionnaires filled out by patients were used to understand the association between quality of discharge teaching, discharge readiness, self-efficacy and self-management.

Long-term observational angiographic patency and perfect patency of radial artery compared with saphenous vein or internal mammary artery in coronary bypass surgery

OBJECTIVES

It is uncertain if the long-term biological behavior of the radial artery as a conduit for coronary bypass surgery has a similar resistance to the development of atherosclerosis as for the internal mammary artery. We aimed to examine long-term angiographic patency and disease-free patency (perfect patency) for internal mammary artery, radial artery, and saphenous vein grafts.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center, individual patient cohort study of angiographic observations from patients' latest postoperative angiogram from 1997 to 2020 was performed. Analysis was per anastomosis and assessed for patency and perfect patency. A generalized linear mixed model premised upon logistic regression was used to minimize confounding bias.

RESULTS

A total of 983 patients with 3064 grafts were included, with a median follow-up of 8.6 (interquartile range, 4.4-12.6) years after the operation. Multivariable analysis revealed differences for radial (patency, 86.9%; perfect patency, 86.4%) and internal mammary artery (patency, 93.9%; perfect patency, 93.5%) versus saphenous vein graft (patency, 72.8%; perfect patency, 46.2%). There were no differences between the 2 arterial conduits for patency (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.85-2.33; P = .189) and perfect patency (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.71-1.84; P = .578). If a conduit was patent, then 99.4% of radial artery, 99.6% of internal mammary artery, and 63.5% of saphenous vein graft were reported as perfectly patent.

CONCLUSIONS

Radial artery and internal mammary artery had similar patency and perfect patency while both were superior to saphenous vein graft.

The efficacy of phase I cardiac rehabilitation training based on augmented reality on the self-efficacy of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Open-heart surgery is considered one of the primary treatments for severe coronary artery stenosis, but it comes with its own set of complications. However, these complications can be reduced through the implementation of proper cardiac rehabilitation during phase I. This study aimed to examine the impact of phase I cardiac rehabilitation training, using augmented reality, on the self-efficacy of cardiac management in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODOLOGY

This randomized clinical trial study involved 60 patients who were admitted to the Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care Unit at Ghaem Hospital in Mashhad. The software used in this study consisted of various videos and educational images demonstrating physical exercises for cardiac rehabilitation. The software was developed to train the patients in the intervention group on the rehabilitation program, starting from their admission to the Intensive Care Unit until their discharge from the hospital. The collected data were analyzed using statistical tests such as independent t-test, Mann-Whitney test, paired t-test, chi-square test, as well as descriptive indicators. Cohen's d was also used to evaluate the magnitude of the effect size.

RESULTS

The findings of this study revealed that the total mean score for cardiovascular management self-efficacy significantly increased during the transfer to the Intensive Care Unit and at the time of discharge. Notably, the increase observed in the intervention group was significantly greater than that of the control group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicated that implementing early rehabilitation programs, using innovative educational technology like augmented reality, enhanced the self-efficacy of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. These findings suggest that such programs can be effectively employed as educational tools throughout different stages of cardiac rehabilitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (no. IRCT20200203046361N1) on 16/02/2020.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recently, both US and European guidelines have predominantly recommended coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the preferred revascularisation method. However, emerging data have raised the possibility of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) being a viable and effective alternative. This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the latest insights from major clinical trials to ascertain whether PCI could be as effective as CABG in treating left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. To achieve this, a comprehensive systematic search was conducted across databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov. The search spanned from the inception of these databases to August 20, 2022, and exclusively focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Employing the random effects model, selected studies underwent rigorous analysis. The study outcomes encompassed a spectrum of factors such as all-cause mortality, major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and revascularisation procedures. The observation periods of interest included the 30-day mark, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. The analysis integrated six RCTs, revealing noteworthy patterns. In terms of all-cause mortality, PCI demonstrated non-inferiority to CABG across all observed time frames: 30 days (OR 0.6), 1 year (OR 0.77), 5 years (OR 1.41), and 10 years (OR 1.08). Analysis of MACCE outcomes favored PCI at 30 days and CABG at 5 years. The utilisation of the original five-year EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularisation) trial definition for MI highlighted higher MI rates for PCI compared to CABG (OR 1.66, P < 0.05). Intriguingly, when the subsequently released EXCEL data, aligned with the third universal MI definition, was incorporated, the five-year data consistently leaned towards CABG. Specifically, the PCI group exhibited 7.5% MI rates in contrast to the 3.6% in the CABG cohort (OR 2.19, P < 0.001). Concerning stroke, PCI proved advantageous at 30 days and 1 year while exhibiting no significant disparity at 5 and 10 years. Revascularisation procedures favoured CABG at one and five years, with comparability at the remaining time points. In summation, the outcomes of this comprehensive meta-analysis suggest that PCI could serve as a feasible alternative to CABG in the context of uncomplicated LMCA disease. It's worth noting that CABG might still hold an advantage for complex lesions.

[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.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Current guidelines have shown the superiority of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over medical therapy. However, there is a paucity of data evaluating the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).

Objective

The authors aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of postpercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and CABG among patients with LVSD.

Methods

The authors performed a systematic literature search using the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Libraries for relevant articles from inception until 30 November 2022. Outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (OR), and their corresponding 95% CI using STATA (version 17.0, StataCorp).

Results

A total of 10 studies with 13 324 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients in PCI was 65.3 years, and 64.1 years in the CABG group. The most common comorbidities included: HTN (80 vs. 78%) and DM (49.2 vs. 49%). The mean follow-up duration was 3.75 years. Compared with CABG, the PCI group had higher odds of all-cause mortality (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.31, P=0.03), repeat revascularization (OR 3.57, 95% CI 2.56-4.97, P<0.001), MI (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.01-3.86, P=0.048) while the incidence of cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.98-1.55, P=0.07), stroke (OR 0.73 95% CI: 0.51-1.04, P=0.08), major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.99-1.87, P=0.06), and ventricular tachycardia (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.22-2.86, P=0.72) was comparable between both the procedures.

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that CABG is superior to PCI for patients with LVSD. CABG was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, and incidence of myocardial infarction compared with PCI in patients with LVSD.

Management of failed stenting of the unprotected left main coronary artery

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly accepted as treatment for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease especially in those patients who are unsuitable for cardiac surgery. Treatment of any stent failure is associated with increased complexity and worse clinical outcomes when compared with de novo lesion revascularization. Intracoronary imaging has provided new insight into mechanisms of stent failure and treatment options have developed considerably over the last decade. There is paucity of evidence on the management strategy for stent failure in the specific setting of ULMCA. Treating any left main with PCI requires careful consideration and consequently treatment of failed stents in ULMCA is complex and provides unique challenges. Consequently, we provide an overview of ULMCA stent failure, proposing a tailored algorithm to guide best management and decision in daily clinical practice, with a special focus on intracoronary imaging characterization of causal mechanisms and specific technical and procedural considerations.

Coronary Stenting: Reflections on a 35-Year Journey

Stenting was introduced as a therapy for coronary artery disease 35 years ago, and is currently the most commonly performed minimally invasive procedure globally. Percutaneous coronary revascularization, initially with plain old balloon angioplasty and later with stenting, has dramatically affected the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndromes. Coronary stenting is probably the most intensively studied therapy in medicine on the basis of the number of randomized clinical trials for a broad range of indications. Continuous improvements in stent materials, design, and coatings concurrent with procedural innovations have truly been awe-inspiring. The story of stenting is replete with high points and some low points, such as the initial experience with stent thrombosis and restenosis, and the more recent disappointment with bioabsorbable scaffolds. History has shown rapid growth of stent use with expansion of indications followed by contraction of some uses in response to clinical trial evidence in support of bypass surgery or medical therapy. In this review we trace the constantly evolving story of the coronary stent from the earliest experience until the present time. Undoubtedly, future iterations of stent design and materials will continue to move the stent story forward.

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease-Current Management and Future Perspectives

Due to its anatomical features, patients with an obstruction of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) have an increased risk of death. For years, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered as a gold standard for revascularization. However, notable advancements in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) led to its acknowledgement as an important treatment alternative, especially in patients with low and intermediate anatomical complexity. Although recent years brought several random clinical trials that investigated the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous approach in LMCA, there are still uncertainties regarding optimal revascularization strategies. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment methods of LMCA disease, focusing on percutaneous methods.

Meta-Analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Narrowing

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) have reported conflicting results. We performed a systematic review up to May 23, 2021, and 1-stage reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to compare outcomes between both groups. The primary outcome was 10-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization at 5 years. We performed individual patient data meta-analysis using published Kaplan-Meier curves to provide individual data points in coordinates and numbers at risk were used to increase the calibration accuracy of the reconstructed data. Shared frailty model or, when proportionality assumptions were not met, a restricted mean survival time model were fitted to compare outcomes between treatment groups. Of 583 articles retrieved, 5 RCTs were included. A total of 4,595 patients from these 5 RCTs were randomly assigned to PCI (n = 2,297) or CABG (n = 2,298). The cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality after PCI and CABG was 12.0% versus 10.6%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.093, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.925 to 1.292; p = 0.296). PCI conferred similar time-to-MI (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.006, 95% CI 0.992 to 1.021, p=0.391) and stroke (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.005, 95% CI 0.998 to 1.013, p = 0.133) at 5 years. Unplanned revascularization was more frequent after PCI than CABG (HR 1.807, 95% CI 1.524 to 2.144, p <0.001) at 5 years. This meta-analysis using reconstructed participant-level time-to-event data showed no statistically significant difference in cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality between PCI versus CABG in the treatment of LMCAD.

Prior percutaneous coronary intervention and outcomes in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of 308,284 patients

Background:

The association between prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and prognosis after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the aforementioned association in a meta-analysis.

Methods:

PubMed, Cochrane’s Library, and Embase databases were searched for potential studies. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of study characteristics on the outcomes.

Results:

Thirty-six follow-up studies with 308,284 patients were included, and 40,892 (13.3%) patients had prior PCI. Pooled results showed that prior PCI was associated with higher risks of early (in-hospital or within 1 month) all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR): 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11–1.44, p = 0.003; I² = 64%] and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.12–1.66, p = 0.002, I² = 79%), but not with late (follow-up durations from 1 to 13 years) mortality (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.95–1.13, p = 0.44, I² = 46%) or MACEs (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97–1.09, p = 0.38, I² = 0%). Meta-regression showed that the study characteristics of patient number, age, sex, diabetic status, and proportion of patients with prior PCI did not affect the outcomes. Sensitivity analyses limited to multivariate studies excluding patients with acute PCI failure showed similar results (early mortality, OR: 1.25, p = 0.003; early MACE, OR: 1.50, p = 0.001; late mortality, OR: 1.03, p = 0.70).

Conclusion:

The current evidence, mostly from retrospective observational studies, suggests that prior PCI is related to poor early clinical outcomes, but not to late clinical outcomes, after CABG.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease is uncertain. We therefore aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes for patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database using the search terms "left main", "percutaneous coronary intervention" or "stent", and "coronary artery bypass graft*" to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between database inception and Aug 31, 2021, comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG in patients with left main coronary artery disease that had at least 5 years of patient follow-up for all-cause mortality. Two authors (MSS and BAB) identified studies meeting the criteria. The primary endpoint was 5-year all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, procedural myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularisation. We used a one-stage approach; event rates were calculated by use of the Kaplan-Meier method and treatment group comparisons were made by use of a Cox frailty model, with trial as a random effect. In Bayesian analyses, the probabilities of absolute risk differences in the primary endpoint between PCI and CABG being more than 0·0%, and at least 1·0%, 2·5%, or 5·0%, were calculated.

FINDINGS

Our literature search yielded 1599 results, of which four RCTs-SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL-meeting our inclusion criteria were included in our meta-analysis. 4394 patients, with a median SYNTAX score of 25·0 (IQR 18·0-31·0), were randomly assigned to PCI (n=2197) or CABG (n=2197). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of 5-year all-cause death was 11·2% (95% CI 9·9-12·6) with PCI and 10·2% (9·0-11·6) with CABG (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·33), resulting in a non-statistically significant absolute risk difference of 0·9% (95% CI -0·9 to 2·8). In Bayesian analyses, there was an 85·7% probability that death at 5 years was greater with PCI than with CABG; this difference was more likely than not less than 1·0% (<0·2% per year). The numerical difference in mortality was comprised more of non-cardiovascular than cardiovascular death. Spontaneous myocardial infarction (6·2%, 95% CI 5·2-7·3 vs 2·6%, 2·0-3·4; hazard ratio [HR] 2·35, 95% CI 1·71-3·23; p<0·0001) and repeat revascularisation (18·3%, 16·7-20·0 vs 10·7%, 9·4-12·1; HR 1·78, 1·51-2·10; p<0·0001) were more common with PCI than with CABG. Differences in procedural myocardial infarction between strategies depended on the definition used. Overall, there was no difference in the risk of stroke between PCI (2·7%, 2·0-3·5) and CABG (3·1%, 2·4-3·9; HR 0·84, 0·59-1·21; p=0·36), but the risk was lower with PCI in the first year after randomisation (HR 0·37, 0·19-0·69).

INTERPRETATION

Among patients with left main coronary artery disease and, largely, low or intermediate coronary anatomical complexity, there was no statistically significant difference in 5-year all-cause death between PCI and CABG, although a Bayesian approach suggested a difference probably exists (more likely than not <0·2% per year) favouring CABG. There were trade-offs in terms of the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularisation. A heart team approach to communicate expected outcome differences might be useful to assist patients in reaching a treatment decision.

FUNDING

No external funding.

Unfathomed Nanomessages to the Heart: Translational Implications of Stem Cell-Derived, Progenitor Cell Exosomes in Cardiac Repair and Regeneration

Exosomes formed from the endosomal membranes at the lipid microdomains of multivesicular bodies (MVBs) have become crucial structures responsible for cell communication. This paracrine communication system between a myriad of cell types is essential for maintaining homeostasis and influencing various biological functions in immune, vasculogenic, and regenerative cell types in multiple organs in the body, including, but not limited to, cardiac cells and tissues. Characteristically, exosomes are identifiable by common proteins that participate in their biogenesis; however, many different proteins, mRNA, miRNAs, and lipids, have been identified that mediate intercellular communication and elicit multiple functions in other target cells. Although our understanding of exosomes is still limited, the last decade has seen a steep surge in translational studies involving the treatment of cardiovascular diseases with cell-free exosome fractions from cardiomyocytes (CMs), cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs), endothelial cells (ECs), mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), or their combinations. However, most primary cells are difficult to culture in vitro and to generate sufficient exosomes to treat cardiac ischemia or promote cardiac regeneration effectively. Pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) offer the possibility of an unlimited supply of either committed or terminally differentiated cells and their exosomes for treating cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). This review discusses the promising prospects of treating CVDs using exosomes from cardiac progenitor cells (CPCs), endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), MSCs, and cardiac fibroblasts derived from PSCs.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus: Cumulative meta-analysis

Previous meta‐analyses showed that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has lower all‐cause mortality than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the management of coronary heart disease (CHD), but the long‐term outcomes were not analyzed thoroughly in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). To perform a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the long‐term effectiveness between CABG and PCI in patients with T2DM and study the temporal trends using a cumulative meta‐analysis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Clinical Trials Registry for eligible RCTs published up to September 2020. The outcomes were all‐cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke. Nine RCTs and 4566 patients were included. CABG resulted in better outcomes than PCI in terms of all‐cause death (RR = 1.41, 95%CI: 1.22–1.63, p < 0.001), cardiac death (RR = 1.56, 95%CI: 1.25–1.95, p < 0.001), and repeat revascularization (RR = 2.68, 95%CI: 1.86–3.85, p < 0.001), but with difference regarding the occurrence of myocardial infarction (RR = 1.20, 95%CI: 0.78–1.85, p = 0.414), while PCI was associated with better outcomes in terms of stroke occurrence (RR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.34–0.77, p = 0.001). The cumulative meta‐analysis for all‐cause death showed that the differences between CABG and PCI started to be significant at 3 years of follow‐up, while the difference became significant at 5 years for cardiac death. In patients with CHD and T2DM, CABG results in better outcomes than PCI in terms of all‐cause death, cardiac mortality, and repeat revascularization, while PCI had better outcomes in terms of stroke. The differences are mainly observed over the long‐term follow‐up.

The Year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2020

THIS SPECIAL article is the 13th in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief, Dr Kaplan, and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series; namely, the research highlights of the past year in the specialty of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesiology.1 The major themes selected for 2020 are outlined in this introduction, and each highlight is reviewed in detail in the main body of the article. The literature highlights in the specialty for 2020 begin with an update on valvular disease, with a focus on updates in management of aortic and mitral valve disorders. The second major theme is an update on coronary artery disease, with discussion of both medical and surgical management. The third major theme is focused on the perioperative management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with the authors highlighting literature discussing medical, surgical, and anesthetic considerations for their cardiac care. The fourth major theme is an update in heart failure, with discussion of medical, psychosocial, and procedural aspects of this complicated disease process. The fifth and final theme focuses on the latest analyses regarding survival in heart transplantation. The themes selected for this 13th special article are only a few of the diverse advances in the specialty during 2020. These highlights will inform the reader of key updates on a variety of topics, leading to improvement of perioperative outcomes for patients with cardiothoracic and vascular disease.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus stenting for patients with chronic kidney disease and complex coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relative role of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and complex coronary artery disease (CAD) remains debatable due to the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We therefore performed this meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of the two strategies in CKD patients with multivessel and/or left main disease.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched to identify the eligible subgroup analysis of RCTs and propensity-matched registries. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality during the longest follow-up.

RESULTS

Five subgroup analyses of RCTs and six propensity-matched registries involving 26,441 patients were analyzed. Overall, the strategy of CABG was associated with lower risks of long-term mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.93], myocardial infarction (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.62), and repeat revascularization (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16-0.39) compared with PCI in CKD patients with complex CAD. However, CABG was slightly associated with higher risk of stroke than PCI (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.00-1.77). Nonetheless, the higher stroke risk in the CABG group no longer existed during long-term follow-up (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.37-2.25) (>3 years).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis supports the current guideline advising CABG for patients with CKD and complex CAD. At the expense of slightly increased risk of stroke, CABG reduces the incidences of long-term all-cause death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization compared with PCI.

Impact of time factor and patient characteristics on the efficacy of PCI vs CABG for left main coronary disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of time factor and patient characteristics on the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease is unclear.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for related trials. Two outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis stratified by follow-up duration and 7 factors of interest related to patient characteristics. Random-effects meta-regression was performed to calculate P values for trend and those for subgroup differences.

RESULTS

We included 11 articles from 5 trials. Compared with CABG, PCI increased MACCE at the end of 3-year (hazard ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.40, I2 = 0) and 5-year (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.20-1.48, I2 = 0) follow-up, but did not increase all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The logarithm of HR of PCI vs CABG for MACCE increased as follow-up duration increased (β = 0.057, P = .025). PCI vs CABG consistently increased 5-year MACCE across various subgroups defined by 7 factors of interest (Psubgroup ranged from .156 to .830).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term benefit of CABG vs PCI on MACCE in patients with left main coronary disease is consistent across patients with different clinical characteristics. The relative benefit of CABG on MACCE is driven by that of CABG on unplanned revascularization, and becomes greater as time goes on.