Alternative Approaches to Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, How Do They Compare?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Severe symptomatic CAD is treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Alternative CABG (ACABG) approaches including thoracotomy, off-pump, total endoscopic, and robotic-assisted CABG are increasing in prevalence to address the increased early risk of CABG. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the contemporary literature comparing outcomes after ACABG and PCI. Pubmed, Medline, and Embase were systematically searched by 2 authors for articles comparing the outcomes after ACABG and PCI. A total of 1154 articles were screened, and 11 were included in this review. The RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis of the pooled data. Individual studies found rates of long-term survival, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization either favored ACABG or did not differ significantly. Pooled estimates of the compiled data identified rates of MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization favored ACABG. The results of this review demonstrated the favorable rates of long-term mortality, MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization for ACABG in addition to similar short-term mortality and stroke when compared with PCI. Advancement of both CABG and PCI continues to improve patient outcomes. With the increasing prevalence of ACABG, similar studies will need to be undertaken with further direct comparisons between ACABG and PCI. Finally, hybrid revascularization should continue to be explored for its combined benefits of long-term outcomes, short-term safety, and ability to achieve complete revascularization.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft in patients with STEMI and unprotected left main stem disease: A systematic review & meta-analysis

Introduction

Owing to its large area of supply, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) has the highest mortality rate among coronary artery lesions, resulting in debate about its optimal revascularization technique. This meta-analysis compares percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of LMCAD.

Method

MEDLINE, TRIP, and Cochrane Central databases were queried from their inception until 25 April 2021, to determine MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events), all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke rates post-revascularization for different follow-ups. 7 RCTs and 50 observational studies having 56,701 patients were included. A random-effects model was used with effect sizes calculated as odds ratios (odds ratio, OR).

Results

In the short term (1 year), PCI had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.58, 95% CI 2.47-5.20; p < 0.00001), but lower strokes (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81; p = 0.002). In the intermediate term (2-5 years), PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.72-4.44; p < 0.00001) and MI (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.17-1.64; p = 0.0002), but significantly lower strokes (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.70; p < 0.0001). PCI also had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.89-3.52; p < 0.00001) in the long term (≥5 years), while in the very long term (≥10 years), PCI had significantly lower all-cause mortalities (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; p = 0.02).

Conclusion

PCI was safer than CABG for patients with stroke for most follow-ups, while CABG was associated with lower repeat revascularizations. However, further research is required to determine PCI's safety over CABG for reducing post-surgery MI.

Second Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Treatment of Young Patients with Left Main and/or Multivessel Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

Many studies have compared the outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery disease (CAD). However, no trials have focused on young patients (<45 years) with complex CAD. We conducted a retrospective evaluation to compare the outcomes of a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) and CABG in young patients with LM or three-vessel disease.

METHODS

In young patients with complex CAD who underwent PCI or CABG, a Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression before and after propensity score matching were used to compare major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, death, and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

During follow-up, MACCE occurred in 20.5% of patients in the PCI group and 8.6% of patients in the CABG group (hazard ratio (HR): 3.263, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.379 to 7.722, p=0.007). Repeat revascularization occurred more frequently in the PCI group (18.9% vs. 3.7%, respectively, HR: 6.968, 95% CI: 2.036 to 23.842, p=0.002). There were no significant differences in the other endpoints. After propensity score matching, no conclusions were modified.

CONCLUSIONS

In young patients with LM or three-vessel disease, PCI showed a higher incidence of MACCE, which was mainly driven by repeat revascularization. However, this did not translate into hard endpoint differences. Therefore, PCI is an alternative treatment to CABG in young patients with complex CAD.

Propensity Score-Based Methods in Comparative Effectiveness Research on Coronary Artery Disease

This review examines the conduct and reporting of observational studies using propensity score-based methods to compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or medical therapy for patients with coronary artery disease. A systematic selection process identified 48 studies: 20 addressing CABG versus PCI; 21 addressing bare-metal stents versus drug-eluting stents; 5 addressing CABG versus medical therapy; 1 addressing PCI versus medical therapy; and 1 addressing drug-eluting stents versus balloon angioplasty. Of 32 studies reporting information on variable selection, 7 relied exclusively on statistical criteria for the association of covariates with treatment, and 5 used such criteria to determine whether product or nonlinear terms should be included in the propensity score model. Twenty-five (52%) studies reported assessing covariate balance using the estimated propensity score, but only 1 described modifications to the propensity score model based on this assessment. The over 400 variables used in the 48 propensity score models were classified into 12 categories and 60 subcategories; only 17 subcategories were represented in at least half of the propensity score models. Overall, reporting of propensity score-based methods in observational studies comparing CABG, PCI, and medical therapy was incomplete; when adequately described, the methods used were often inconsistent with current methodological standards.

Long term outcomes of drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

Background

It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent (DES) is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease at long-term follow up (≥ 3 years).

Methods

Eligible studies were selected by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2016. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke during the longest follow-up. Death, cardiac death, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization were the secondary outcomes.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials and twelve adjusted observational studies involving 14,130 patients were included. DES was comparable to CABG regarding the occurrence of the primary endpoint (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86–1.03). Besides, DES was significantly associated with higher incidence of MI (HR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.09–2.22) and repeat revascularization (HR = 3.09, 95% CI: 2.33–4.10) compared with CABG, while no difference was found between the two strategies regard as the rate of death, cardiac death and stroke. Furthermore, DES can reduce the risk of the composite endpoint of death, MI or stroke (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67–0.95) for ULMCA lesions with SYNTAX score ≤ 32.

Conclusions

Although with higher risk of repeat revascularization, PCI with DES appears to be as safe as CABG for ULMCA disease at long-term follow up. In addition, treatment with DES could be an alternative interventional strategy to CABG for ULMCA lesions with low to intermediate anatomic complexity.

Percutaneous intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization technique in patients with left main coronary artery disease (CAD) remains controversial. We aimed to compare the long-term performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in treatment of left main CAD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched until November 16, 2016.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and 22 matched observational studies including 22,487 patients and 90,167 patient-years of follow-up were included. PCI was associated with an overall higher risk for the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio (HR), 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.77), mainly driven by higher rates of myocardial infarction (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.22-2.34) and revascularization (HR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.86-4.22). The overall risks for all-cause death (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20), cardiac death (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.69-1.59), stroke (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.33-1.24), and the composite safety endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.16) were similar between PCI and CABG. Stratified analysis based on stent types showed that the increased risk for myocardial infarction associated with PCI was only evident in patients with bare-metal stents or early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), but not newer-generation DES. Stratified analyses based on study designs showed largely similar findings with the overall analyses, except for a significantly higher incidence of myocardial infarction in adjusted studies (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.45) but a trend toward higher incidence in randomized trials (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.85-2.27) associated with PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CABG, PCI with newer-generation DES might be a safe alternative revascularization strategy for treatment of left main CAD, but is associated with more repeat revascularization.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in left main stem stenosis: outcomes, concerns and controversies

Left main stem (LMS) disease is known to be a poor prognostic factor in terms of morbidity or mortality. Traditionally, it has been treated with constitution of bypass to provide required haemodynamic stability. We searched the literature for evidence on off-pump (OFP) surgery for treating this high-risk group of patients focusing in our review on postoperative outcomes, concerns and controversies. The majority of the studies identified showed favourable or equal outcomes of OFP when compared to conventional approach. All of the studies, apart from two, which showed lower incidence of postoperative deaths, demonstrated equal mortality rates. Stroke rates were found less in three studies. Less blood transfusions, inotropic use and length of study has been also demonstrated. The main concerns of OFP surgery are: haemodynamic instability and less complete revascularization. Main controversies are: same or favourable outcomes despite lower number of grafts with OFP surgery and less stroke rates despite manipulation of aorta with side-clamping. Despite these concerns and controversies OFP surgery has been proven to be feasible and safe as demonstrated by results from numerous studies.

Effect of coronary artery revascularization on in-hospital outcomes and long-term prognoses in acute myocardial infarction patients with prior ischemic stroke

Objective

To investigate whether coronary artery revascularization therapies (CART), including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), can improve the in-hospital and long-term outcomes for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with prior ischemic stroke (IS).

Methods

A total of 387 AMI patients with prior IS were enrolled consecutively from January 15, 2005 to December 24, 2011 in this cohort study. All patients were categorized into the CART group (n = 204) or the conservative medications (CM) group (n = 183). In-hospital cardiocerebral events and long-term mortality of the two groups after an average follow-up of 36 months were recorded by Kaplan-Meier survival curves and compared by Logistic regression and the Cox regression model.

Results

The CART patients were younger (66.5 ± 9.7 years vs. 71.7 ± 9.7 years, P < 0.01), had less non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (11.8% vs. 20.8%, P = 0.016) and more multiple-vascular coronary lesions (50% vs. 69.4%, P = 0.031). The hospitalization incidence of cardiocerebral events in the CART group was 9.3% while 26.2% in the CM group (P < 0.01). CART significantly reduced the risk of in-hospital cardiocerebral events by 65% [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13–0.92]. By the end of follow-up, 57 cases (41.6%) died in CM group (n = 137) and 24 cases (12.2%) died in CART group (n = 197). Cox regression indicated that CART decreased the long-term mortality by 72% [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.06–0.46], while categorical analysis indicated no significant difference between PCI and CABG.

Conclusions

CART has a significant effect on improving the in-hospital and long-term prognoses for AMI patients with prior IS.

Pure Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Grafting in Diabetic Patients With Triple-Vessel Disease

BACKGROUND

Despite the documented superior long-term patency of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting, use of BITAs remains low, especially in diabetic patients. We analyzed the results of pure BITA grafting to determine whether the potential survival advantage outweighs the risk of wound infection in diabetic patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 791 consecutive patients (389 diabetic, 402 nondiabetic) with triple-vessel disease who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass using only skeletonized BITAs from 2001 to 2010. We used propensity score matching to match 315 nondiabetic patients with diabetic patients.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly regarding 10-year survival (diabetic, 84.2% ± 4.5%; nondiabetic, 80.8% ± 4.7%; p = 0.828) or freedom from major adverse cardiovascular events (diabetic, 73.5% ± 5.2%; nondiabetic, 71.8% ± 5.3%; p = 0.431). Diabetes was not predictive of deep sternal infection (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 5.31; p = 0.895). Results of stratified competing risks regression analysis showed that the risk of target vessel revascularization in diabetic patients was similar to that of nondiabetic patients (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 2.80; p = 0.585).

CONCLUSIONS

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting using pure BITAs produced excellent clinical outcomes in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. This strategy did not increase the incidence of deep sternal infection in diabetic patients. We recommend BITA grafting, which has proven long-term patency, as a strategy of choice in diabetic patients.

Surgical versus percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease

New-generation stents have been continually developed in order to improve the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several randomized clinical trials have been conducted over the last two decades to compare the outcomes of PCI with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), which has been the time-tested treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. The Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial is one of the most recent and largest randomized controlled trials comparing PCI using the paclitaxel-eluting first-generation stent with CABG and was uniquely formulated to represent "real world" daily practice. The final 5-year main results of this trial and its various prespecified subgroups have been published in the past year. These results will form the basis of the new guidelines that will be published in the near future. This review is a compilation of the results of the SYNTAX trial and comparisons with other contemporary trials, meta-analyses, and retrospective studies of large registries and how these results help cardiac surgeons and cardiologists in judicious decision-making for their patients with multivessel coronary artery disease requiring revascularization.

Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) when treating significant de novo left main coronary artery (LM) stenosis; however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a class IIa indication for unprotected LM disease in selected patients. This analysis compares 5-year clinical outcomes in PCI- and CABG-treated LM patients in the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial, the largest trial in this group to date.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SYNTAX trial randomly assigned 1800 patients with LM or 3-vessel disease to receive either PCI (with TAXUS Express paclitaxel-eluting stents) or CABG. The unprotected LM cohort (N=705) was predefined and powered. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates at 5 years was 36.9% in PCI patients and 31.0% in CABG patients (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.59]; P=0.12). Mortality rate was 12.8% and 14.6% in PCI and CABG patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.32]; P=0.53). Stroke was significantly increased in the CABG group (PCI 1.5% versus CABG 4.3%; hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.92]; P=0.03) and repeat revascularization in the PCI arm (26.7% versus 15.5%; hazard ratio, 1.82 [95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.57]; P<0.01). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between arms in patients with low/intermediate SYNTAX scores but significantly increased in PCI patients with high scores (≥33).

CONCLUSIONS

At 5 years, no difference in overall major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was found between treatment groups. PCI-treated patients had a lower stroke but a higher revascularization rate versus CABG. These results suggest that both treatments are valid options for LM patients. The extent of disease should accounted for when choosing between surgery and PCI, because patients with high SYNTAX scores seem to benefit more from surgery compared with those in the lower tertiles.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00114972.