Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With a Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients Receiving Dialysis: A National Study From Taiwan

Rationale & Objective

We aimed to study the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent and coronary artery bypass grafting in patients receiving dialysis.

Study Design

This was a retrospective observational cohort study.

Setting & Participants

This population-based study identified patients receiving dialysis hospitalized for coronary revascularization between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2015, in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database.

Exposures

Patients received percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting.

Outcomes

The study outcomes were all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, and repeat revascularization.

Analytical Approach

Propensity scores were used to match patients. Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression models were constructed to examine associations between revascularization strategies and mortality. Interval Cox models were fitted to estimate time-varying hazards during different periods.

Results

A total of 1,840 propensity score-matched patients receiving dialysis were analyzed. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent; crude mortality rate 12.5% vs 3.3%; adjusted OR, 5.22; 95% CI, 3.42-7.97; P < 0.001) and longer hospitalization duration (median [IQR], 20 [14-30] days vs 3 [2-8] days; P < 0.001). After discharge, repeat revascularization, acute coronary syndrome, and repeat hospitalization all occurred more frequently in the percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent group. Importantly, with a median follow-up of 2.8 years, coronary artery bypass grafting was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause overall mortality (adjusted HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.35; P = 0.006) in the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses yielded consistent results.

Limitations

This was an observational study with mainly Asian ethnicity.

Conclusions

Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent may be associated with better survival than coronary artery bypass grafting in patients receiving dialysis. Future studies are warranted to confirm this finding.

Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in coronary artery disease patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: A Chinese single-center study

Objectives

Aims to compare the contemporary and long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Methods

823 CAD patients with advanced CKD (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m²) were collected, including 247 patients who underwent CABG and 576 patients received PCI from January 2014 to February 2021. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and revascularization.

Results

Multivariable Cox regression models were used and propensity score matching (PSM) was also performed. After PSM, the 30-day mortality rate in the CABG group was higher than that in the PCI group but without statistically significant (6.6% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.24). During the first year, patients referred for CABG had a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.42 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.41-3.01] for mortality compared with PCI. At the end of the 5-year follow-up, CABG group had a HR of 0.58 (95%CI, 0.38-0.86) for repeat revascularization, a HR of 0.77 (95%CI, 0.52-1.14) for survival rate and a HR of 0.88(95%CI, 0.56-1.18) for MACCEs as compared to PCI.

Conclusions

Among patients with CAD and advanced CKD who underwent CABG or PCI, the all-cause mortality and MACCEs were comparable between the two groups in 30 days, 1-year and 5 years. However, CABG was only associated with a significantly lower risk for repeat revascularization compared with PCI at 5 years follow-up.

Comparison of long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting in multi-vessel disease with chronic kidney disease

Objective

This study aims to analyze cardiac and renal outcomes of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with multi-vessel disease who have undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Materials and methods

Chronic kidney disease patients with multi-vessel disease who underwent CABG or PCI were retrospectively selected from our database and divided into the PCI group [further stratified into PCI with complete revascularization (PCI-CR) and PCI with incomplete revascularization (PCI-IR) groups] and the CABG group. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 5 years. The key secondary endpoint was the 5-year rate of the renal composite outcome, defined as >40% glomerular filtration rate decrease, initiation of dialysis, and/or kidney transplant. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, and the results were further adjusted by multivariable analyses and inverse probability weighting.

Results

Among the study population (n = 798), 443 (55.5%) patients received CABG and 355 (44.5%) patients received PCI. Compared with the CABG group, the PCI group had similar risk of the primary endpoint (CABG vs. PCI, 19.3% vs. 24.0%, HR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.95–1.73, p = 0.11) and a lower risk of the renal composite outcome (36.6% vs. 31.2%, HR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.58–0.94, p = 0.03). In addition, PCI-IR was associated with a significantly higher risk of the primary endpoint than CABG (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.11–2.13, p = 0.009) or PCI-CR (HR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.09–2.89, p = 0.02). However, PCI-CR had a comparable 5-year death, MI, or stroke rate to CABG (HR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.54–1.38, p = 0.54).

Conclusion

Coronary artery bypass grafting showed an incidence of death, MI, or stroke similar to PCI but was associated with a higher risk of renal injury. PCI-CR had a prognosis comparable with that of CABG, while PCI-IR had worse prognosis. If PCI is chosen for revascularization in patients with CKD, achieving CR should be attempted to ensure favorable outcomes.

Clinical trial registration

[clinicaltrials.gov], identifier [NCT 03870815].

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in dialysis-dependent patients: A pooled meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

OBJECTIVE

Το perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of published data comparing outcomes between a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in dialysis-dependent patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies including dialysis-dependent patients who underwent either CABG or PCI. This meta-analysis follows the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We conducted one-stage and two-stage meta-analysis with Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data for overall survival and meta-analysis with the random-effects model for the in-hospital mortality and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met our eligibility criteria, including 13,651 and 28,493 patients were identified in the CABG and PCI arms, respectively. Patients who underwent CABG had overall improved survival compared with those who underwent PCI at the one-stage meta-analysis (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.16, p < .0001) and the two-stage meta-analysis (HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.08-1.23, p < .001, I²  = 30.0%). Landmark analysis suggested that PCI offers better survival before the 8.5 months of follow-up (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-0.99, p = .043), while CABG offers an advantage after this timepoint (HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.22-1.32, p < .001). CABG was associated with increased odds for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.50-1.92, p < .001, I²  = 0.0%) and decreased odds for repeat revascularization (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.14-0.34, p < .001, I²  = 58.08%).

CONCLUSIONS

In dialysis-dependent patients, CABG was associated with long-term survival but a higher risk for early mortality. The risk for repeat revascularization was higher with PCI.

Coronary revascularisation in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for revascularising coronary arteries in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). CKD is described as a continuous decrease in the glomerular filtration rate or abnormalities in kidney structure or function.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched for studies on the revascularisation of coronary arteries in patients with CKD and ESRD.

RESULTS

Since no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have addressed this issue so far, 31 observational studies involving 74 805 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with PCI, patients undergoing CABG have significantly higher early mortality (CKD: RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.17-2.25, pheterogeneity = 0.476, I²  = 0; ESRD: RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46-2.71, pheterogeneity = 0.001, I²  = 66.9%). Patients with ESRD undergoing CABG have significantly lower all-cause mortality (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93-0.96, pheterogeneity < 0.001, I²  = 82.9%) and cardiac mortality (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58-0.92, pheterogeneity = 0.908, I²  = 0). The long-term risk of repeat revascularisation (CKD: RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.19-0.30, pheterogeneity = 0.489, I²  = 0; ESRD: RR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.15-0.34, pheterogeneity = 0.012, I²  = 54.4%) and myocardial infarction (CKD: RR = .57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85, pheterogeneity = 0.025, I²  = 49.9%; ESRD: RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.40-0.44, pheterogeneity = 0.49, I²  = 0) remained significantly higher in the PCI group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ESRD, but not CKD, who underwent CABG had significantly lower all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality. However, CABG was associated with an increased risk of early mortality in patients with CKD or ESRD. Adequately powered, contemporary, prospective RCTs are needed to define the optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with CKD and ESRD.

Cardiac Surgery 2020 Reviewed

In 2020, nearly 30,000 published references appeared in the PubMed for the search term "cardiac surgery." While SARS-CoV-2 affected the number of surgical procedures, it did not affect outcomes reporting. Using the PRISMA approach, we selected relevant publications and prepared a results-oriented summary. We reviewed primarily the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with interventional alternatives. The coronary field started with a discussion on trial data value and their interpretation. Registry comparisons of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention confirmed outcomes for severe coronary artery disease and advanced comorbidities with CABG. Multiple arterial grafting was best. In aortic valve surgery, meta-analyses of randomized trials report that transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a short-term advantage but long-term survival may be better with classic aortic valve replacement (AVR). Minimally invasive AVR and decellularized homografts emerged as hopeful techniques. In mitral and tricuspid valve surgery, excellent perioperative and long-term outcomes were presented for structural mitral regurgitation. For both, coronary and valve surgery, outcomes are strongly dependent on surgeon expertise. Kidney disease increases perioperative risk, but does not limit the surgical treatment effect. Finally, a cursory look is thrown on aortic, transplant, and assist-device surgery with a glimpse into the current stand of xenotransplantation. As in recent years, this article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. We aimed to provide up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

Survival outcomes and adverse events in patients with chronic kidney disease after coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matching studies

BACKGROUND

The present meta-analysis of propensity score-matching studies aimed to compare the long-term survival outcomes and adverse events associated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing CABG and PCI in patients with CKD. The search period extended to 13 February 2021. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to express the pooled effect. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 18,005 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Long-term mortality risk was significantly lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.70-0.83, p < .001), and similar results were observed in the subgroup analysis of patients undergoing dialysis and for different estimated glomerular filtration rate ranges. The incidence rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12-0.54, p < .001) and revascularization (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.08-0.35, p < .001) were lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group, although there were no significant differences in the incidence of stroke between the two groups (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.89-1.73, p > .05). Subgroup analysis among patients on dialysis yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our propensity score matching analysis revealed that, based on long-term follow-up outcomes, CABG remains superior to PCI in patients with CKD.