Multivessel coronary stenting versus bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and normal left ventricular function: immediate and 2-year long-term follow-up

Revascularization for left main and multivessel coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era: integration of recent drug-eluting stent trials

As older patients comprise a greater proportion of the population, the incidence of multivessel and left main coronary artery disease is increasing. Given the improvements in percutaneous coronary intervention, more patients are suitable for this revascularization strategy. However, the optimal revascularization strategy remains a moving target. Numerous trials, extending from the bypass surgery versus medical therapy era to the most current drug-eluting stent versus bypass surgery era, provide information to select the most appropriate revascularization strategy. The objective of this review is to summarize these data.

Treating patients with non-STEMI: stent the culprit artery only or address all lesions?

Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI) is a common presentation of the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) spectrum. Currently, the recommended treatment option is an invasive approach with angiography plus coronary revascularization to treat the culprit lesion. However, unlike in STEMI--in which the culprit lesion can be easily identified--in non-STEMI identifying the culprit lesion is difficult. Therefore, some have advocated for a more definitive approach to addressing all severe lesions in patients presenting with non-STEMI. The current European guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel versus culprit-only stenting state that "the decision to perform either culprit vessel or complete revascularization can be made on an individual basis," whereas the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for multivessel PCI in patients presenting with ACS recommend that "it be performed when there is a high likelihood of success and a low risk of morbidity and the vessels to be dilated subtend a moderate or large area of viable myocardium and have high risk by noninvasive testing." Although lesions and coronary anatomies are each unique and the risk and benefit of coronary intervention to each lesion should be carefully examined, we recommend stenting the culprit lesion and other severe lesions after careful consideration, in a staged fashion if necessary. If the severity of nonculprit lesions is in question, fractional flow reserve or intravascular ultrasound should be considered.

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for people with stable angina or acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) replaces obstructed vessels with ones from other parts of the body. Alternatively, obstructions are remodelled using catheter-based techniques such as percutaneous coronary angioplasty with the use of stents. Though less invasive, stenting techniques are limited by the re-narrowing of treated vessels (restenosis). We examined evidence on cardiac-related outcomes occurring after CABG or stenting, with implications for resource use, resource allocation and informing patient choice.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on benefit of stents or CABG in reducing cardiac events in people with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

SEARCH STRATEGY

CENTRAL (Issue 2 2004), EMBASE (1990 to 2004), MEDLINE (1990 to 2004) and handsearching to July 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only RCTs comparing stents used with PTCA with CABG were included. Participants were adults with stable angina or ACS and unstable angina and had either single or multiple vessel disease. Published and unpublished sources were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcomes included composite event rate (major adverse cardiac event, event free survival), death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), repeat revascularisation and binary restenosis as well as information on design and baseline characteristics. Quality assessment was completed independently. Meta-analyses are presented as odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Heterogeneity between trials was assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (3519 patients) were included. Four RCTs included patients with multiple vessel disease, five focused on single vessel disease. Four studies reported beyond 1 year. No statistical differences were observed between CABG and stenting for meta-analysis of mortality or AMI, but there was heterogeneity. Composite cardiac event and revascularisation rates were lower for CABG than for stents. Odds ratios resulting from meta-analysis of event rate data at 1 year were, odds ratio 0.43 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.54) and at 3 years, odds ratio 0.37 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.48). Odds ratios for revascularisation at 1 year were, odds ratio 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.25) and at 3 years, odds ratio 0.09 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.34). Binary restenosis at 6 months (single vessel trials) favoured CABG, odds ratio 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.51).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CABG is associated with reduced rates of major adverse cardiac events, mostly driven by reduced repeat revascularisation. However, the RCT data are limited by follow-up, unrepresentative samples and rapid development of both surgical techniques and stenting. Research on real-world patient population or patient level data meta-analyses may identify risk factors and groupings who may benefit most from one strategy over the other.