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

Current indications and surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) accounts for more than 60% of congestive heart failure cases and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% aims to improve survival and quality of life and reduce complications associated with heart failure and coronary artery disease. The majority of randomized clinical trials have consistently excluded those patients, resulting in evidence primarily derived from observational studies.

MAIN BODY

We performed a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology in five stages: 1) formulating the research question; 2) locating relevant studies; 3) choosing studies; 4) organizing and extracting data; and 5) compiling, summarizing, and presenting the findings. This literature review covers primary studies and systematic reviews focusing on surgical revascularization strategies in adult patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or lower. Through an extensive search of Medline and the Cochrane Library, a systematic review was conducted to address three questions regarding myocardial revascularization in these patients. These questions outline the current knowledge on this topic, current surgical strategies (off-pump vs. on-pump), and graft options (including hybrid techniques) utilized for revascularization. Three independent reviewers (MAE, DP, and AM) applied the inclusion criteria to all the included studies, obtaining the full texts of the most relevant studies. The reviewers subsequently assessed these articles to make the final decision on their inclusion in the review. Out of the initial 385 references, 156 were chosen for a detailed review. After examining the full articles were examined, 134 were found suitable for scoping review.

CONCLUSION

The literature notes the scarcity of surgical revascularization in LVD patients in randomized studies, with observational data supporting coronary revascularization's benefits. ONCABG is recommended for multivessel disease in LVD with LVEF < 35%, while OPCAB is proposed for older, high-risk patients. Strategies like internal thoracic artery skeletonization harvesting and postoperative glycemic control mitigate risks with BITA in uncontrolled diabetes. Total arterial revascularization maximizes long-term survival, and hybrid revascularization offers advantages like shorter hospital stays and reduced costs for significant LAD lesions.

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

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease is a common cause of ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), for which the optimal revascularisation 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

Study-level (SLMA) and reconstructed individual patient data (rIPDMA) meta-analyses from Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves were performed. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for observational and randomised studies published after 2010 that compared PCI and 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, repeated revascularisation, cardiovascular mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at longest follow-up.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (11 observational, 3 randomised, 13,063 patients) were eligible for the SLMA. Seven contained digitisable KM curves from which individual patient data could be reconstructed. Study-level analysis found PCI to be associated with increased all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.69), MI (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.62-2.72), repeated revascularisation (HR 2.39, 95% CI 1.37-4.17), and MACCE (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.23-2.03), without significant differences in stroke (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.39-1.92) or cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.78-2.59). In the rIPDMA, PCI resulted in increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.34-1.87) and repeated revascularisation (HR 3.63, 95% CI 3.12-4.21) but overall lower risk of stroke (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99) owing to fewer events during initial follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ischemic LVSD, PCI was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and repeated revascularisation than CABG, but lower risk of short-term stroke. (PROSPERO: CRD42021291408).

Low Left-Ventricular Ejection Fraction as a Predictor of Intraprocedural Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an established alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with moderate-to-high perioperative risk. Periprocedural TAVR complications decrease with growing expertise of implanters. Nevertheless, TAVR can still be accompanied by life-threatening adverse events such as intraprocedural cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study analyzed the role of a reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in intraprocedural complications during TAVR. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes from patients undergoing TAVR in a high-volume center (600 cases per year) were analyzed retrospectively with regard to their left-ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with a reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (EF ≤ 40%) faced a significantly higher risk of perioperative adverse events. Within this cohort, patients were significantly more often in need of mechanical ventilation (35% vs. 19%). These patients also underwent CPR (17% vs. 5.8%), defibrillation due to ventricular fibrillation (13% vs. 5.4%), and heart-lung circulatory support (6.1% vs. 2.5%) more often. However, these intraprocedural adverse events showed no significant impact on postoperative outcomes regarding in-hospital mortality, stroke, or in-hospital stay. A reduced preprocedural LVEF is a risk factor for intraprocedural adverse events. With respect to this finding, the identified patient cohort should be treated with more caution to prevent intraprocedural incidents.

Treatment Strategies for Chronic Coronary Heart Disease with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction or Preserved Ejection Fraction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In this meta-analysis, we examine the advantages of invasive strategies for patients diagnosed with chronic coronary heart disease (CHD) and preserved left ventricular (LV) function, as well as those with significant LV systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction (EF) < 45%).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify all randomized trials directly comparing invasive strategies with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients diagnosed with chronic CHD. Data from these trials were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was the all-cause mortality, while secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization. This study was designed to assess the benefits of both invasive strategies and OMT in patients with preserved LV function and in those with LV systolic dysfunction. The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using the Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).

RESULTS

Twelve randomized studies enrolling 13,912 patients were included in the final analysis. Among the patients with chronic CHD and preserved LV systolic function, revascularization did not demonstrate a reduction in all-cause mortality (8.52% vs. 8.45%, p = 0.45), CV death (3.41% vs. 3.62%, p = 0.08), or the incidence of MI (9.88% vs. 10.49%, p = 0.47). However, the need for unplanned myocardial revascularization was significantly lower in the group following the initial invasive approach compared to patients undergoing OMT (14.75% vs. 25.72%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the invasive strategy emerged as the preferred treatment modality for patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction. This approach demonstrated lower rates of all-cause mortality (40.61% vs. 46.52%, p = 0.004), CV death (28.75% vs. 35.82%, p = 0.0004), and MI (8.19% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals diagnosed with chronic CHD and preserved LV EF, the initial invasive approach did not demonstrate a clinical advantage over OMT. Conversely, in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction, myocardial revascularization was found to reduce the risks of CV events and enhance the overall outcomes. These findings hold significant clinical relevance for optimizing treatment strategies in patients with chronic CHD, contingent upon myocardial contractility status.

Understanding the role of coronary artery revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and multivessel disease

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Advances and innovations in medical therapy have been shown to play a crucial role in improving the prognosis of patients with CAD and HFrEF; however, mortality rate in these patients remains high, and the role of surgical and/or percutaneous revascularization strategy is still debated. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial and the Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED) trial have attempted to provide an answer to this issue. Nevertheless, the results of these two trials have generated further uncertainties. Their findings do not provide a definitive answer about the ideal clinical phenotype for surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization and dispute the historical dogma on myocardial viability and the theory of myocardial hibernation, raising new questions about the proper selection of patients who are candidates for coronary revascularization. The aim of this review is to provide an overview on the actual available evidence of coronary artery revascularization in patients with CAD and left ventricular dysfunction and to suggest new insights on the proper selection and management strategies in this high-risk clinical setting.

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.

Coronary revascularization for heart failure with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common cause of heart failure (HF). Whether coronary revascularization improves outcomes in patients with HF receiving guideline-recommended pharmacological therapy (GRPT) remains uncertain; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched in public databases for RCTs published between 1 January 2001 and 22 November 2022, investigating the effects of coronary revascularization on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic HF due to CAD. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. We included five RCTs that enrolled, altogether, 2842 patients (most aged <65 years; 85% men; 67% with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%). Overall, compared to medical therapy alone, coronary revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.99; p = 0.0278) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93; p = 0.0024) but not the composite of hospitalization for HF or all-cause mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74-1.01; p = 0.0728). There were insufficient data to show whether the effects of coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention were similar or differed.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with chronic HF and CAD enrolled in RCTs, the effect of coronary revascularization on all-cause mortality was statistically significant but neither substantial (HR 0.88) nor robust (upper 95% CI close to 1.0). RCTs were not blinded, which may bias reporting of the cause-specific reasons for hospitalization and mortality. Further trials are required to determine which patients with HF and CAD obtain a substantial benefit from coronary revascularization by either coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Current concepts in coronary artery revascularisation

Coronary artery revascularisation can be performed surgically or percutaneously. Surgery is associated with higher procedural risk and longer recovery than percutaneous interventions, but with long-term reduction of recurrent cardiac events. For many patients with obstructive coronary artery disease in need of revascularisation, surgical or percutaneous intervention is indicated on the basis of clinical and anatomical reasons or personal preferences. Medical therapy is a crucial accompaniment to coronary revascularisation, and data suggest that, in some subsets of patients, medical therapy alone might achieve similar results to coronary revascularisation. Most revascularisation data are based on prevalently White, non-elderly, male populations in high-income countries; robust data in women, older adults, and racial and other minorities, and from low-income and middle-income countries, are urgently needed.

What is the role of coronary revascularization to recover the contractility of the dysfunctional heart?

Coronary artery disease is the predominant aetiology of heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction in industrialized countries. The pathophysiological substrate of hibernating myocardium constitutes the conceptual target of coronary revascularization by coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or coronary angioplasty or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Studies, mainly observational, conducted in the past have demonstrated a prognostic benefit of CABG on survival. These findings were confirmed by the long-term follow-up of the STICH study in which, however, documentation of inducible ischaemia or myocardial viability was not predictive of a prognostic benefit of CABG. Revascularization via PCI in the recent REVIVED-BCIS2 study did not demonstrate a significant benefit in terms of death or heart failure hospitalization compared with optimal medical therapy. Pending the long-term follow-up of the REVIVED-BCIS2 study, optimized medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and the implantable cardioverter defibrillator, where indicated, are the mainstay of treatment in patients with dilated ischaemic cardiomyopathy. The decision for coronary revascularization is made in the individual patient, possibly with a higher bias in patients with angina, three-vessel coronary artery disease, severe left ventricular dysfunction, and cardiac remodelling.

Left main coronary disease: evolving management concepts

Remarkable advances in the management of coronary artery disease have enhanced our approach to left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. The traditional role of coronary artery bypass graft surgery has been challenged by the less invasive percutaneous coronary interventional approach. Additionally, major strides in optimal medical therapy now provide a rich menu of treatment choices in selected circumstances. Although a LMCA stenosis >70% is an acceptable threshold for revascularization, those patients with a LMCA narrowing between 40 and 69% present a more complex scenario. This review examines the relative merits of the different treatment options, addresses key diagnostic and therapeutic unknowns, and identifies future work likely to advance progress.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

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.

Myocardial Revascularization Surgery: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was introduced in the 1960s as the first procedure for direct coronary artery revascularization and rapidly became one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide, with an overall total of more than 20 million operations performed. CABG continues to be the most common cardiac surgical procedure performed and has been one of the most carefully studied therapies. Best CABG techniques, optimal bypass conduits, and appropriate patient selection have been rigorously tested in landmark clinical trials, some of which have resolved controversy and most of which have stoked further debate and trials. The evolution of CABG cannot be properly portrayed without presenting it in the context of the parallel development of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this Historical Perspective, we a provide a broad overview of the history of coronary revascularization with a focus on the foundations, evolution, best evidence, and future directions of CABG.