Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease and Severe Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Left ventricular recovery after total arterial coronary artery bypass grafting versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

We compared total arterial revascularization (TAR) versus conventional revascularization (CR) in terms of left ventricular function recovery in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 162 consecutive patients with multivessel CAD and reduced LVEF who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting at our institution between January 2013 and July 2022. We assessed left ventricular function by transthoracic echocardiography at admission, before discharge, and at follow-up of 3, 6, and 12 months, using LVEF, global longitudinal peak strain, end-diastolic volume index, and end-systolic volume index. We also evaluated mitral valve regurgitation and graft patency rate at 1 year.

RESULTS

The TAR group had a significantly higher increase in LVEF and global longitudinal peak strain, and a significantly lower decrease in end-diastolic volume index and end-systolic volume index than the CR group at 6 and 12 months after surgery. The TAR group also had a significantly lower degree of mitral valve regurgitation than the CR group at all-time points within 12 months after surgery. The TAR group had a significantly higher graft patency rate than the CR group at 12 months. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality or repeat revascularization between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TAR was associated with better recovery of left ventricular function than CR in patients with multivessel CAD and reduced LVEF. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in this high-risk population.

Change in left ventricular function and outcomes following high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella-guided hemodynamic support

Introduction

High-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HRPCI) are a potential treatment option for patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and coronary artery disease. The extent to which such intervention is coupled with improvement in LVEF and associated with favorable outcomes is unknown.

Methods

We aimed to characterize the incidence and correlates of LVEF improvement after Impella-guided HRPCI, and compare clinical outcomes in patients with versus without LVEF improvement. Data on consecutive patients undergoing Impella-guided HRPCI from a single center registry were analyzed. LVEF-improvement was defined as an absolute increase of LVEF of ≥10% measured at ≥30-days after intervention. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization within 1-year.

Results

Out of 161 consecutive patients undergoing Impella-guided HRPCI from June 2008 to December 2017, 43% (n = 70) demonstrated LVEF-improvement (baseline LVEF of 25.09 ± 6.19 to 33.30 ± 11.98 post intervention). Patients without LVEF-improvement had higher frequency of previous MI (61.5% vs. 37.1%, p = 0.0021), Q-waves on ECG (17.6% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.024) and higher SYNTAX scores (30.8 ± 17.6 vs. 25.2 ± 12.2; p = 0.043). After correction of these confounders by multivariable analysis, no significant differences were found regarding the composite endpoint in patients with versus without LVEF-improvement (34.9% vs. 38.3%; p = 0.48).

Discussion

In this single-center retrospective analysis, we report the following findings. First, LVEF improvement of at least 10% was documented in over 40% of patients undergoing Impella supported high-risk PCI. Second, a history of MI, Q-waves on admission ECG, and higher baseline SYNTAX scores were independent correlates of no LVEF improvement. Third, one year rates of adverse CV events were substantial and did not vary by the presence or absence of LVEF improvement Prospective studies with longer follow-up are needed to elucidate the impact of LVEF improvement on clinical outcomes.

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).

Choice of revascularization strategy for ischemic cardiomyopathy due to multivessel coronary disease

OBJECTIVE

Limited comparative data guide the decision between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel revascularization in ischemic cardiomyopathy. The study objective was to compare the long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for ischemic cardiomyopathy.

METHODS

Clinical registries from the New Jersey Department of Health linked to administrative databases were used to compare all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, heart failure readmissions, myocardial infarction, and stroke using Cox proportional hazards and propensity matching with competing risk analysis in 5988 patients with ejection fraction 35% or less who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (3673, 61.3%) or percutaneous coronary intervention (2315, 38.6%) for multivessel coronary disease between 2007 and 2018. Median follow-up time was 5.2 years (range, 0-13 years); the last follow-up date was December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

After controlling for completeness of revascularization, at 13 years, mortality was 57% (95% CI, 51-63) after percutaneous coronary intervention and 60% (95% CI, 53-66) after coronary artery bypass grafting (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 0.93-1.31; P = .28); risk of repeat revascularization was 18% for percutaneous coronary intervention versus 14% for coronary artery bypass grafting (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.25; P = .003); risk of readmission for heart failure was 16% after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting (HR, 1.13,95% CI, 0.84-1.51, weighted P = .10); risk of myocardial infarction was 10% versus 6%, respectively (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.18-3.09; P = .007); and stroke risk was 3% versus 4%, respectively (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.41-1.53; P = .52). Rate of complete revascularization was lower after percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass grafting and associated with higher mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.20-1.52; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary bypass was associated with similar mortality, stroke, and heart failure readmissions, and reduced repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy if similar rates of complete revascularization were achieved. These findings support consensus recommendations for coronary artery bypass grafting and medical therapy in patients with multivessel coronary disease and left ventricular dysfunction.

Temporal Trend in Revascularization for Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, there is limited information about the trends and outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using New Jersey state mandatory registries, 8083 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with CABG or PCI revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease from 2007 to 2018 were included in the analysis. Joinpoint regression and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the annual percentage change in trends and predictors of the 30-day mortality rate, respectively. A decline in CABG procedures was observed from 2007 to 2011 (annual percentage change, -11.5%; P=0.003), followed by stabilization. The PCI trend remained unchanged from 2007 to 2010 and then increased significantly (annual percentage change, 3.2%; P=0.02). In the subsample of patients with proximal left anterior descending artery plus circumflex and right coronary artery, CABG was a predominant procedure until 2011, and the proportion of both procedures did not differ thereafter. In the subsample of patients with left anterior descending artery and any other artery stenosis, PCI remained dominant from 2007 to 2018, while in patients with left main and any other artery stenosis, CABG remained dominant from 2007 to 2018 (P<0.001). The 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rate was higher after PCI versus CABG for each year, but after adjustment for completeness of revascularization, there was no difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The patterns of revascularization procedures for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with multivessel coronary artery disease have changed over the years, as evidenced by the changes in CABG and PCI trends. CABG and PCI had comparable 30-day risk-adjusted mortality risks.

Do the Few Dictate Care for the Many? Revascularisation Considerations That Go Beyond the Guidelines

The burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is large and growing, commonly presenting with comorbidities and older age. Patients may benefit from coronary revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), yet half of patients with CAD who would benefit from revascularisation fall outside the eligibility criteria of trials to date. As such, the choice of revascularisation procedures varies depending on the CAD anatomy and complexity, surgical risk and comorbidities, the patient's preferences and values, and the treating team's expertise. The recent American guidelines on coronary revascularisation are comprehensive in describing recommendations for PCI, CABG, or conservative management in patients with CAD. However, individual challenging patient presentations cannot be fully captured in guidelines. The aim of this narrative review is to summarise common clinical scenarios that are not sufficiently described by contemporary clinical guidelines and trials in order to inform heart team members and trainees about the nuanced considerations and available evidence to manage such cases. We discuss clinical cases that fall beyond the current guidelines and summarise the relevant evidence evaluating coronary revascularisation for these patients. In addition, we highlight gaps in knowledge based on a lack of research (eg, ineligibility of certain patient populations), underrepresentation in research (eg, underenrollment of female and non-White patients), and the surge in newer minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. We argue that ultimately, evidence-based medicine, patient preference, shared decision making, and effective heart team communications are necessary to best manage complex CAD presentations potentially benefitting from revascularisation with CABG or PCI.

Comparison of mid-term mortality after surgical, supported or unsupported percutaneous revascularization in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction: A direct and network meta-analysis of adjusted observational studies and randomized-controlled

INTRODUCTION

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains to be elucidated. The aim of this paper is to compare the mid-term mortality rate among patients with severely reduced ejection fraction (EF) and complex coronary artery disease who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Impella support, or without.

METHODS

Randomized control trials and propensity-adjusted observational studies including patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and severe EF reduction undergoing revascularization were selected. Different revascularization strategies (CABG, supported PCI, and PCI without Impella) were compared in pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was mid-term mortality (within the first year after revascularization).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, mostly observational (17,841 patients; 6779 patients treated with CABG, 8478 treated with PCI without Impella, and 2584 treated with Impella-supported PCI) were included in this analysis. The median age was 67.8 years (IQR 65-70.1), 21.2% (IQR 16.4-26%) of patients were female sex, and a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors was noted across the entire population. At pairwise analysis, CABG and PCI without Impella showed similar one-year all-cause mortality (10.6% [IQR 7.5-12.6%] vs 12% [IQR 8.4-11.5%]) RR 0.85 CI 0.67-1.09, while supported PCI reduced one-year all-cause mortality compared to PCI without Impella (9.4% [IQR 5.7-12.5%] vs 10.6% [IQR 8.9-10.7%]) RR 0.77 CI 0.6-0.89. At network meta-analysis, supported PCI showed better results (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.94) compared to CABG.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found that supported PCI may have a benefit over standard PCI in patients in direct comparison, and over CABG from indirect comparison, and with HFrEF undergoing revascularization. Further RCTs are needed to confirm this result. (PROSPERO CRD42023425667).

A review of the conservative versus invasive management of ischemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart failure is increasing in terms of prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates. Clinical trials and studies are focusing on heart failure as it is the destiny end-stage for several cardiovascular disorders. Recently, medical therapy has dramatically progressed with novel classes of medicines providing better quality of life and survival outcomes. However, heart failure remains a heavy impactful factor on societies and populations. Current guidelines from the American and European cardiac societies are not uniform with respect to the class and level of treatment recommendations for coronary artery disease patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The discrepancy among international recommendations, stemming from the lack of evidence from adequately powered randomized trials, challenges physicians in choosing the optimal strategy. Hybrid therapy including optimal medical therapy with revascularization strategies are commonly used for the management of ischemic heart failure. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) has proved its efficacy on improving long term outcome and prognosis while no large randomized clinical trials for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are still available. Regardless of the lack of data and recommendations, the trends of performing PCI in ischemic heart failure prevailed over CABG whereas lesion complexity, chronic total occlusion and complete revascularization achievement are limiting factors. Lastly, regenerative medicine seems a promising approach for advanced heart failure enhancing cardiomyocytes proliferation, reverse remodeling, scar size reduction and cardiac function restoration.

Current Landscape and Future Directions of Coronary Revascularization in Ischemic Systolic Heart Failure: A Review

Ischemic heart disease is the largest cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of heart failure (HF). The incidence and prevalence of HF are increasing owing to an aging population and improvements in the acute cardiac care of previously fatal conditions such as myocardial infarction. Strategies to improve outcomes in patients with ischemic systolic HF are urgently needed. There is systematic underutilization of testing for coronary artery disease in patients with HF, and revascularization is performed in an even smaller minority despite evidence for reduced mortality with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over medical therapy in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a less-invasive approach to coronary revascularization; however, the recent Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED)-British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS2) trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of PCI compared with that of medical therapy in patients with ischemic systolic HF. The comparative effectiveness of PCI and CABG for patients with ischemic systolic HF remains unknown, particularly in the era of contemporary medical therapy. In this review, we discuss the benefit of CABG in ischemic systolic HF, its underutilization, and the unmet clinical need. We also review the recent REVIVED-BCIS2 trial comparing PCI to medical therapy, as well as upcoming randomized controlled trials of PCI for ischemic systolic HF and persistent evidence gaps that will exist despite anticipated data from ongoing trials. There remains a need for an adequately powered randomized controlled trials to establish the comparative clinical effectiveness of PCI vs CABG in ischemic systolic HF in the era of contemporary revascularization approaches and medical therapy, as well as trials of coronary revascularization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction or less severe forms of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Impact and Implications of Neurocognitive Dysfunction in the Management of Ischemic Heart Failure

Neurocognitive dysfunction is common in heart failure (HF), with 30% to 80% of patients experiencing some degree of deficits in one or more cognitive domains, including memory, attention, learning ability, executive function, and psychomotor speed. Although the mechanism is not fully understood, reduced cardiac output, comorbidities, chronic cerebral hypoperfusion, and cardioembolic brain injury leading to cerebral hypoxia and brain damage seem to trigger the neurocognitive dysfunction in HF. Cognitive impairment is independently associated with worse outcomes including mortality, rehospitalization, and reduced quality of life. Patients with poorer cognitive function are at an increased risk of severe disease as they tend to have greater difficulty complying with treatment requirements. Coronary revascularization in patients with ischemic HF has the potential to improve cardiovascular outcomes but risks worsening neurocognitive dysfunction even further. Revascularization by coronary artery bypass grafting carries inherent risks for delirium, cognitive impairment, neurologic injury, and stroke, which are known to exacerbate the risk of neurocognitive dysfunction. Alternatively, percutaneous coronary intervention, as a less-invasive approach, has the potential to minimize the risk of cognitive impairment but has not yet been evaluated as an alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischemic HF. Therefore, it is paramount to raise awareness of the neurocognitive consequences in ischemic HF and devise strategies for recognition and prevention as an important target of patient management and personalized decision making that contributes to patient outcomes.

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.

[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.

Coronary plaque burden predicts perioperative cardiovascular events after coronary endarterectomy

Background and aims

The risk factors of perioperative and long-term cardiovascular events in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with adjunctive coronary endarterectomy (CE) are not well determined. This study evaluated the clinical value of coronary plaque burden, coronary anatomic stenosis, and serum biomarkers for predicting perioperative cardiovascular events after off-pump CABG + CE.

Methods

This retrospective cohort single-center study enrolled 125 patients undergoing off-pump CABG + CE between February 2018 and September 2021 in China. Coronary plaque burden was reflected by the length of plaque removed by CE. Plaque length-max, which represents the plaque length in patients undergoing single-vessel CE and the maximum plaque length in patients undergoing multivessel CE, was calculated. The primary endpoint was perioperative myocardial infraction (PMI).

Results

Plaque length-max was significantly higher in patients with PMI than in those without PMI (2.4 ± 1.5 vs. 1.6 ± 0.9, p = .001). A threshold plaque length-max of 1.15 cm was an independent predictor of PMI (area under the curve: 0.67; sensitivity 87.9%; specificity 59.8%; p = .005). Patients with plaque length-max ≥1.15 had a > 5-fold increase in PMI after adjusting for confounding factors (odds ratio = 5.89; p = .002). Furthermore, interleukin-6 (Beta = .32: p = .028), CD68 (Beta = .34; p = .045), and osteopontin (Beta = .43; p = .008) were significantly correlated with plaque length-max.

Conclusions

Plaque length-max was superior to clinical cardiovascular risk factors in predicting PMI occurrence after off-pump CABG + CE, which might be associated with systemic and plaque inflammation state.

Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How

Background Myocardial revascularization has been advocated to improve myocardial function and prognosis in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). We discuss the evidence for revascularization in patients with ICM and the role of ischemia and viability detection in guiding treatment. Methods and Results We searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the prognostic impact of revascularization in ICM and the value of viability imaging for patient management. Out of 1397 publications, 4 randomized controlled trials were included, enrolling 2480 patients. Three trials (HEART [Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial], STICH [Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure], and REVIVED [REVascularization for Ischemic VEntricular Dysfunction]-BCIS2) randomized patients to revascularization or optimal medical therapy. HEART was stopped prematurely without showing any significant difference between treatment strategies. STICH showed a 16% lower mortality with bypass surgery compared with optimal medical therapy at a median follow-up of 9.8 years. However, neither the presence/extent of left ventricle viability nor ischemia interacted with treatment outcomes. REVIVED-BCIS2 showed no difference in the primary end point between percutaneous revascularization or optimal medical therapy. PARR-2 (Positron Emission Tomography and Recovery Following Revascularization) randomized patients to imaging-guided revascularization versus standard care, with neutral results overall. Information regarding the consistency of patient management with viability testing results was available in ≈65% of patients (n=1623). No difference in survival was revealed according to adherence or no adherence to viability imaging. Conclusions In ICM, the largest randomized controlled trial, STICH, suggests that surgical revascularization improves patients' prognosis at long-term follow-up, whereas evidence supports no benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention. Data from randomized controlled trials do not support myocardial ischemia or viability testing for treatment guidance. We propose an algorithm for the workup of patients with ICM considering clinical presentation, imaging results, and surgical risk.

Determinants and clinical outcomes of stroke following revascularization among patients with reduced ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

Stoke after revascularization including both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is an uncommon but devastating complication. Patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) had an increased risk of stroke after revascularization. However, little is known about the determinants and outcomes of stroke among patients with reduced EF following revascularization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort study of patients with preoperative reduced EF (≤40%) who received revascularization by either PCI or CABG between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2014 was performed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent correlates of stroke. Logistic regression models were applied to evaluate the association of stroke with clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1937 patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 111 (5.7%) patients suffered from stroke during the median 3.5-year follow-up. Older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; p = .009), history of hypertension (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.18-2.73; p = .007), and history of stroke (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.19-3.36; p = .008) were found to be independent predictors for stroke. Patients with and without stroke had similar risk of all-cause death (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.59-1.41; p = .670). However, stroke was associated with higher odds ratio of heart failure (HF) hospitalization (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.74-4.40; p < .001) and composite end point (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.42; p = .021).

CONCLUSIONS

Further research appears warranted to minimize the complication of stroke and improve long-term outcomes among patients with reduced EF who underwent such high risk revascularization procedural.

Physician preferences for revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: Defining equipoise from web-based surveys

Background

The optimal revascularization approach in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ischemic heart disease ("ischemic cardiomyopathy") is unknown. Physician preferences regarding clinical equipoise for mode of revascularization and their willingness to consider offering enrollment in a randomized trial to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy have not been characterized.

Methods

We conducted two anonymous online surveys: 1) a clinical case scenario-based survey to assess willingness to offer clinical trial enrollment for a patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy (overall response rate to email invitation 0.45 %), and 2) a Delphi consensus-building survey to identify specific areas of clinical equipoise (overall response rate to email invitation 37 %).

Results

Among 304 physicians responding to the clinical case scenario-based survey, the majority were willing to offer the opportunity for clinical trial enrollment to a prototypical patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy (92 %), and felt that a finding of non-inferiority for PCI vs. CABG would influence their clinical practice (78 %). Among 53 physicians responding to the Delphi consensus-building survey, the median appropriateness rating for CABG was significantly higher than that of PCI (p < 0.0001). In 17 scenarios (11.8 %), there was no difference in CABG or PCI appropriateness ratings, suggesting clinical equipoise in these settings.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate willingness to consider offering enrollment in a randomized clinical trial and areas of clinical equipoise, two factors that support the feasibility of a randomized trial to compare clinical outcomes after revascularization with CABG vs. PCI in selected patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, suitable coronary anatomy and co-morbidity profile.

Enhanced myocardial blood flow in ischemic cardiomyopathy by a slow-release synthetic prostacyclin agonist combined with coronary artery bypass grafting: The first human study in a Phase I/IIa clinical trial

Background

YS-1402, which is a polymerized form of the synthetic prostacyclin agonist ONO-1301, has been proven in several preclinical studies to induce therapeutic effects for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). In this human study, we assessed the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of YS-1402, combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), for ICM.

Methods

Twenty-four patients with ICM whose left ventricular ejection fraction was <40% with an indication for CABG were double-blindly assigned to four groups: placebo, 10-mg YS-1402, 30-mg YS-1402, and 100-mg YS-1402. YS-1402 or placebo medications were administered on the surface of the left ventricle at the time of the CABG. Pre- and postoperative cardiac function and myocardial blood flow were assessed for 6 months postoperatively, along with a safety assessment.

Results

No severe adverse events were related to YS-1402. The maximum blood concentration of ONO-1301 was less than that of the no observable adverse effect level. Significantly increased myocardial blood flow (MBF) and cardiac function were observed in the YS-1402 group 26 weeks postoperatively, although no improvement in MBF occurred in the placebo group.

Conclusion

This Phase I/IIa parallel group-controlled, dose-escalation study of YS-1402 combined with CABG for ICM demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and potential efficacy of YS-1402.

Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with heart failure with a midrange ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improves survival in patients with heart failure and severely reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF). Limited data exist regarding adverse cardiovascular event rates after CABG in patients with heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF; LVEF > 40% and < 55%).

METHODS

We analyzed data on isolated CABG patients from the Veterans Affairs national database (2010-2019). We stratified patients into control (normal LVEF and no heart failure), HFmrEF, and heart failure with reduced LVEF (HFrEF) groups. We compared all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization rates between groups with a Cox model and recurrent events analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

In 6533 veterans, HFmrEF and HFrEF was present in 1715 (26.3%) and 566 (8.6%) respectively; the control group had 4252 (65.1%) patients. HFrEF patients were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (59%), insulin therapy (36%), and previous myocardial infarction (31%). Anemia was more prevalent in patients with HFrEF (49%) as was a lower serum albumin (mean, 3.6 mg/dL). Compared with the control group, a higher risk of death was observed in the HFmrEF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.3 [1.2-1.5)] and HFrEF (HR, 1.5 [1.2-1.7]) groups. HFmrEF patients had the higher risk of myocardial infarction (subdistribution HR, 1.2 [1-1.6]; P = .04). Risk of heart failure hospitalization was higher in patients with HFmrEF (HR, 4.1 [3.5-4.7]) and patients with HFrEF (HR, 7.2 [6.2-8.5]).

CONCLUSIONS

Heart failure with midrange ejection fraction negatively affects survival after CABG. These patients also experience higher rates myocardial infarction and heart failure hospitalization.

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on outcomes after left main revascularization: g-LM Registry

AIMS

The impact of left ventricular dysfunction on clinical outcomes following revascularization is not well established in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCA). In this study, we evaluated the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on clinical outcomes of patients with ULMCA requiring revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

METHODS

The details of the design, methods, end points, and relevant definitions are outlined in the Gulf Left Main Registry: a retrospective, observational study conducted between January 2015 and December 2019 across 14 centres in 3 Gulf countries. In this study, the data on patients with ULMCA who underwent revascularization through PCI or CABG were stratified by LVEF into three main subgroups; low (l-LVEF <40%), mid-range (m-LVEF 40-49%), and preserved (p-LVEF ≥50%). Primary outcomes were hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and mortality and follow-up MACCE and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 2137 patients were included; 1221 underwent PCI and 916 had CABG. During hospitalization, MACCE was significantly higher in patients with l-LVEF [(10.10%), P = 0.005] and m-LVEF [(10.80%), P = 0.009], whereas total mortality was higher in patients with m-LVEF [(7.40%), P = 0.009] and p-LVEF [(7.10%), P = 0.045] who underwent CABG. There was no mortality difference between groups in patients with l-LVEF. At a median follow-up of 15 months, there was no difference in MACCE and total mortality between patients who underwent CABG or PCI with p-LVEF and m-LVEF.

CONCLUSION

CABG was associated with higher in-hospital events. Hospital mortality in patients with l-LVEF was comparable between CABG and PCI. At 15 months' follow-up, PCI could have an advantage in decreasing MACCE in patients with l-LVEF.

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.

Diabetes, heart failure, and myocardial revascularization: Is there a new message from the ISCHEMIA trial?

There is no evidence that the indications for myocardial revascularization differ between patients with and without diabetes. Accepted indications include stable angina that cannot be adequately managed by medication, acute coronary syndromes, severely reduced left ventricular (LV) function due to coronary artery disease, left main stenosis, and advanced coronary artery disease causing substantial inducible ischemia. The recent ISCHEMIA trial challenged the criterion of ischemia. With respect to its primary endpoint, ISCHEMIA showed no benefit of an invasive strategy with systematic myocardial revascularization in patients with stable angina and moderate-to-severe ischemia compared with a conservative strategy. However, myocardial revascularization resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in angina and an improvement in quality of life. There was a significant reduction in prognostically relevant spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) in the long term, which came at the cost of an increased rate of peri-interventional MI that was of minor prognostic relevance. The risk profile and number of patients included in the ISCHEMIA trial, as well as the duration of follow-up, are not sufficient to show that the lower incidence of spontaneous infarcts improved survival. In ISCHEMIA, there was no heterogeneity in treatment effect depending on diabetes.

Long-term outcome of surgical revascularization in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction-a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Surgical revascularization is an established indication for patients with advanced coronary artery disease and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Long-term outcomes for these patients are not well-defined. We studied the long-term outcomes of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy who underwent surgical revascularization in a well-defined nationwide cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study on 2005 patients that underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting in Iceland between 2000 and 2016. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their preoperative LVEF; LVEF ≤35% (n = 146, median LVEF 30%) and LVEF >35% (n = 1859, median LVEF 60%). Demographics and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were compared between groups along with cardiac-specific and overall survival. The median follow-up was 7.6 years.

RESULTS

Demographics were similar in both groups regarding age, gender and most cardiovascular risk factors. However, patients with LVEF ≤35% more often had diabetes, renal insufficiency, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a previous history of myocardial infarction. Thirty-day mortality was 4 times higher (8% vs 2%, P < 0.001) in the LVEF ≤35%-group compared to controls. Overall survival was significantly lower in the LVEF ≤35%-group compared to controls, at 1 year (87% vs. 98%, P < 0.001) and 5 years (69% vs. 91%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis LVEF ≤35% was linked to inferior survival with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.0 (95%-CI 1.5 - 2.6, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A good long-term outcome after coronary artery bypass grafting can be expected for patients with reduced LVEF, however, their survival is still significantly inferior to patients with normal ventricular function.

Prediction of stroke reconvalescence after coronary bypass surgery indicated by CT scan parameters

BACKGROUND

Stroke in the postoperative time course after heart surgery remains a serious risk. Cranial computer tomography (CCT) is the first line option to detect severe intracranial damage. However, only few data are available to predict neurological outcome. Using visual rating scales (VRSs), this study addresses reliability and effectivity to indicate neurological status and likelyhood of improvement.

METHODS

In a single-center retrospective evaluation, 3719 patients underwent coronary bypass surgery. Because of a delayed recovery phase and neurologic deficits after cardiac surgery 109 patients had a cranial CT scan in the early postoperative period. The incidence of clinically relevant findings within the imaging was rated by an experienced neuroradiologist using two VRS, that is, the age-related white matter changes (ARWMCs) and the Mendes-Ribeiro visual rating scale (MRVRS). Both are computer-assisted measurement schemes to detect stroke-related intracranial damage. Follow-up was investigated with regard to clinical outcome and patient-related risk profiles.

RESULTS

Of 109 patients with postoperative cranial CT scans due to prolonged recovery phases or proven neurological damage 44.5% had one cerebral defect in CCT imaging scans only. The others showed multiple defects. During hospital stay, 92.3% experienced neurological improvement exposing reduced ARWMC, while 7.1% had no improvement and correlating high scores. Of both scales, the ARWMC-VRS demonstrated superior accuracy and discrimination. The preoperative ejection fraction (EF), arteriosclerotic degeneration of carotid arteries, and reduced glomerular filtration rate were found to have a high correlation (r = 0.0005) with the latter group. In-hospital mortality of this cohort was 8.18%.

CONCLUSION

Both the ARWMC and MRVRS were found to be appropriate. They reliably discriminate the groups of stroke patients after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)  in the analysis of CCT images. When applied at the onset of neurological symptoms both scales are able to predict neurological reconvalescence upon hospital dismission. The ARWMC scale appeared superior as it demonstrated better accuracy and discrimination. The use of both VRS in patients with suspected stroke after CABG surgery can give insightful information toward a progression of neurological dysfunction or postoperative improvement.

One-Stop Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

One-stop hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a promising revascularization strategy for treating multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). However, its safety and feasibility remain controversial. Therefore, we introduced our experience with midterm follow-up of HCR in patients with MVCAD and compared it with conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).Patients with MVCAD undergoing one-stop HCR at Beijing Chaoyang Hospital between March 2018 and December 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. These patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio to patients treated with off-pump CABG at the same period via a propensity score analysis with the nearest neighbor matching algorithm.In the adjusted analysis, no significant difference was found in the rate of perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, death, prolonged ventilation, reoperation for bleeding, and renal failure between the HCR group and the CABG group. No in-hospital repeated revascularization occurred in either group. HCR was associated with lower blood transfusion rate (HCR 11.0% versus CABG 22.8%; P = 0.006) and shorter postoperative length of stay (> 10 days: 31.5% versus 81.0%; P < 0.001) compared with CABG. After the median 21-month follow-up, no significant difference was found in the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), death, myocardial infarction, repeated revascularization, and stroke rate. Besides, the freedom-from MACCE survival rate was similar between the two groups.One-stop HCR seemed to be a safe and feasible revascularization strategy in patients with MVCAD, with faster recovery and similar outcomes when compared with off-pump CABG.

Change in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction With Coronary Artery Revascularization and Subsequent Risk for Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Coronary revascularization is recommended to treat ischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the relations of revascularization-associated ejection fraction (EF) change to subsequent outcomes have not been elucidated.

METHODS

In 10 071 veterans (mean age 67 years; 1% women; 15% non-White) who underwent a first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2010, and had prerevascularization and postrevascularization EF measured, we calculated delta-EF (postprocedure EF-preprocedure EF). We related delta-EF as a continuous measure and as categories (≤-5, -5<delta-EF<0, delta-EF=0, 0<delta-EF<5, and delta-EF≥5) to death (using Cox regression) and heart failure hospitalization days (using negative binomial regression) in multivariable-adjusted models, for total sample, and PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting strata.

RESULTS

Over follow-up (mean/maximum 5/14 years) 56% died. Each 5% improvement in delta-EF was associated with statistically significant reductions in death and heart failure hospitalization days of 5% (95% CI, 3%-7%) and 10% (95% CI, 5%-15%), respectively, in the total sample and 6% (95% CI, 4%-8%) and 10% (95% CI, 5%-16%), respectively, in the PCI subgroup. Patients in the highest delta-EF category had 27% (95% CI, 19%-34%) lower mortality (30% [95% CI, 21%-37%] lower in PCI stratum) and ≈40% lower heart failure hospitalization days in total sample and PCI stratum, compared with those in the lowest category. Relations of delta-EF and outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting subgroup did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Revascularization-associated EF improvement was associated with significant reductions in mortality and heart failure hospitalization burden, particularly in the PCI subgroup.

PCI in Patients With Heart Failure: Current Evidence, Impact of Complete Revascularization, and Contemporary Techniques to Improve Outcomes

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and heart failure (HF). Revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduces all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy alone for these patients. Despite this, CABG is performed in a minority of patients with HF, partly due to patient unwillingness or inability to undergo major cardiac surgery and partly due to physician reluctance to refer for surgery due to high operative risk. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a less-invasive method of revascularization that has the potential to reduce periprocedural complications compared with CABG in patients with HF. Recent advances in PCI technology and technique have made it realistic to achieve more complete revascularization with PCI in high-risk patients with HF, although no randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of PCI in HF compared with either medical therapy or CABG have been performed. In this review, we discuss the currently available evidence for PCI in HF and the association between the extent of revascularization and clinical outcomes in HF. We also review recent advances in PCI technology and techniques with the potential to improve clinical outcomes in HF. Finally, we discuss emerging clinical trial evidence of revascularization in HF and the large, persistent evidence gaps that should be addressed with future clinical trials of revascularization in HF.

A comparison of drug-eluting stent and coronary artery bypass grafting in mildly to moderately ischemic heart failure

Aims

The best revascularization strategy for patients with ischaemic heart failure (IHF) remains unclear. Current evidence and guidelines mainly focus on patients with severe ischaemic heart failure (ejection fraction [EF] < 35%). There are limited data comparing clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with implantation of drug‐eluting stents (DESs) in patients with mild to moderate ischaemic heart failure (EF 35–50%). It is therefore unknown whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES implantation can provide comparable outcomes to CABG in these patients.

Methods and results

From January 2016 to December 2017, we enrolled patients with mildly to moderately reduced EF (35–50%) who had undergone PCI with DESs or CABG. Patients with a history of CABG, presented with acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (MI) or acute heart failure, and patients who had undergone CABG concomitant valvular or aortic surgery were excluded. Propensity score‐matching analysis was performed between the two groups. Kaplan–Meier analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression were applied to assess all‐cause mortality and individual end points. A total of 2050 patients (1330 PCIs and 720 CABGs) were included, and median follow‐up was 45 months (interquartile range 40 to 54). There were significant differences in all‐cause death between the two groups: 77 patients in the PCI group and 27 in the CABG group (DES vs. CABG: 5.8% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.045). After propensity score matching for the entire population, 601 matched pairs were obtained. The long‐term cumulative rate of all‐cause death was significantly different between the two groups (DES vs. CABG: 5.8% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.006). No differences were found in the rates of cardiac death (DES vs. CABG: 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.096), recurrent MI (DES vs. CABG: 4.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.234), and stroke (DES vs. CABG: 6.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.163). The rate of repeat coronary revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (12.1% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.000).

Conclusions

Considering the higher long‐term survival rate and lower repeat‐revascularization rate, CABG may be superior to DES implantation in patients with mildly to moderately reduced EF (35–50%) and significant CAD.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Coronary Artery Diseases and Moderate Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Purpose

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are two revascularization strategies for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular dysfunction. However, the comparisons of effectiveness between the two strategies are insufficient. This study is aimed to compare the effectiveness between PCI and CABG among patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

Patients and Methods

A total of 1487 CAD patients with moderate reduced ejection fraction (36%≤EF≤40%), who underwent either PCI or CABG, were enrolled in a real-world cohort study (No. ChiCTR2100044378). Clinical outcomes included short- and long-term all-cause mortality, rates of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and repeat revascularization. Propensity score matching was used to balance the two cohorts.

Results

PCI was associated with lower 30-day mortality rate (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.35 [0.15–0.83]; P=0.02). At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, PCI and CABG had similar all-cause death (HR [95% CI], 0.82 [0.56–1.20]; P=0.30) and heart failure (HF) hospitalization (HR [95% CI], 0.93 [0.54–1.60]; P=0.79), but PCI had higher risk of repeat revascularization (HR [95% CI], 8.62 [3.67–20.23]; P<0.001). Improvement in EF measured at 3 months later after revascularization was also similar between PCI and CABG (P for interaction=0.87).

Conclusion

CAD patients with moderate reduced EF who had PCI had lower short-term mortality rate but higher risk of repeat revascularization during follow-up than patients who had CABG. PCI showed comparable long-term survival, HF hospitalization risk, and EF improvement.

Long-term mortality in patients with ischaemic heart failure revascularized with coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR)

Aims 

To compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treatment of patients with heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease.

Methods and results 

We analysed all-cause mortality following CABG or PCI in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and multivessel disease (coronary artery stenosis >50% in ≥2 vessels or left main) who underwent coronary angiography between 2000 and 2018 in Sweden. We used a propensity score-adjusted logistic and Cox proportional-hazards regressions and instrumental variable model to adjust for known and unknown confounders. Multilevel modelling was used to adjust for the clustering of observations in a hierarchical database. In total, 2509 patients (82.9% men) were included; 35.8% had diabetes and 34.7% had a previous myocardial infarction. The mean age was 68.1 ± 9.4 years (47.8% were >70 years old), and 64.9% had three-vessel or left main disease. Primary designated therapy was PCI in 56.2% and CABG in 43.8%. Median follow-up time was 3.9 years (range 1 day to 10 years). There were 1010 deaths. Risk of death was lower after CABG than after PCI [odds ratio (OR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41–0.96; P = 0.031]. The risk of death increased linearly with quintiles of hospitals in which PCI was the preferred method for revascularization (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17–1.38, P  _trend < 0.001).

Conclusion 

In patients with ischaemic heart failure, long-term survival was greater after CABG than after PCI.

Effect of Heart Failure on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Severe Coronary Artery Disease

Background Heart failure might be an important determinant in choosing coronary revascularization modalities. There was no previous study evaluating the effect of heart failure on long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) relative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods and Results Among 14 867 consecutive patients undergoing first coronary revascularization with PCI or isolated CABG between January 2011 and December 2013 in the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG registry Cohort-3, we identified the current study population of 3380 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, and compared clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG stratified by the subgroup based on the status of heart failure. There were 827 patients with heart failure (PCI: N=511, and CABG: N=316), and 2553 patients without heart failure (PCI: N=1619, and CABG: N=934). In patients with heart failure, the PCI group compared with the CABG group more often had advanced age, severe frailty, acute and severe heart failure, and elevated inflammatory markers. During a median 5.9 years of follow-up, there was a significant interaction between heart failure and the mortality risk of PCI relative to CABG (interaction P=0.009), with excess mortality risk of PCI relative to CABG in patients with heart failure (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.42; P<0.001) and no excess mortality risk in patients without heart failure (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.34; P=0.77). Conclusions There was a significant interaction between heart failure and the mortality risk of PCI relative to CABG with excess risk in patients with heart failure and neutral risk in patients without heart failure.

Network meta-analysis of treatment strategies in patients with coronary artery disease and low left ventricular ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

The optimal treatment strategy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains controversial. Herein, we conducted a network meta-analysis comparing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with CAD and low LVEF.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through March, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing CABG, PCI, and OMT. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) of the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of three RCTs and 10 PSM trials were identified, yielding a total of 18,855 patients with CAD with low EF who were treated with CABG (n = 9241), PCI (n = 8771), or OMT (n = 1003). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with CABG compared with those with PCI or OMT (HR [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.72 [0.62-0.82], p < .001, HR [95% CI] = 0.65 [0.51-0.82], p = .004, respectively), while no difference was observed between PCI and OMT. The rates of MI were significantly lower in patients treated with CABG compared to those treated with PCI or OMT. However, the subgroup analysis by limiting the PCI group to patients who received drug-eluting stent (DES) showed similar all-cause mortality between CABG and PCI, while both CABG and PCI were associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with OMT.

CONCLUION

The present study demonstrated that CABG was the appropriate treatment strategy in patients with CAD and low LVEF. Further long-term trials were warranted to investigate outcomes of PCI with DES compared with CABG.

Real-World Outcomes of Revascularization Strategies in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Three-Vessel Coronary Disease Stratified by Mitral Regurgitation

Aims: Limited information exists regarding optimal revascularization options for patients with triple-vessel coronary artery disease (TVD), heart failure (HF), and different degrees of mitral regurgitation (MR). Thus, we aimed to compare the effect of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the indicated patients.

Methods and Results: In the real-world prospective study, 1190 patients with multi-vessel disease and decreased left ventricular systolic function but without severe MR, who underwent PCI or CABG, were enrolled and followed-up for 4.7 ± 1.8 years. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. Secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary outcome. Risk of the primary endpoint was higher in the PCI than in the CABG group (HR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.14–1.67, and P < 0.01), particularly in patients with moderate MR (HR = 1.85, 95%CI: 1.35–2.55, and P < 0.01). In patients with no-mild MR, the risk of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between PCI and CABG (P = 0.09). Treatment with PCI was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in the moderate MR cohort, while PCI was comparable to CABG in the no-mild MR cohort.

Conclusions: In this real-world study, for patients with HF and TVD, CABG was related to lower adverse outcome rates compared to PCI. Assessment of MR can aid in selecting optimal revascularization therapies and in risk stratification.

Multiple arterial conduits for multi-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with mild to moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a multicenter retrospective study

Background

Advantages of multiple arterial conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have been reported previously. We aimed to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of multiple arterial CABG (MABG) among patients with mild to moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).

Methods

This multicenter study using propensity score matching took place from January 2013 to June 2019 in Jiangsu Province and Shanghai, China, with a mean and maximum follow-up of 3.3 and 6.8 years, respectively. We included patients with mild to moderate LVSD, undergoing primary, isolated multi-vessel CABG with left internal thoracic artery. The in-hospital and mid-term outcomes of MABG versus conventional left internal thoracic artery supplemented by saphenous vein grafts (single arterial CABG) were compared. The primary end points were death from all causes and death from cardiovascular causes. The secondary end points were stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and a composite of all mentioned outcomes, including death from all causes (major adverse events). Sternal wound infection was included with 6 months of follow-up after surgery.

Results

243 and 676 patients were formed in MABG and single arterial CABG cohorts after matching in a 1:3 ratio. In-hospital death was not significantly different (MABG 1.6% versus single arterial CABG 2.2%, p = 0.78). After a mean (±SD) follow-up time of 3.3 ± 1.8 years, MABG was associated with lower rates of major adverse events (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44–0.94; p = 0.019), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16–0.99; p = 0.045) and repeat revascularization (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18–0.97; p = 0.034). There was no difference in the rates of death, stroke, and sternal wound infection.

Conclusions

MABG was associated with reduced mid-term rates of major adverse events and cardiovascular events and may be the procedure of choice for patients with mild to moderate LVSD requiring CABG.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-021-01463-5.

Complex interventions in the failing heart

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome with a substantial disease burden. We aim to review the interventional aspects of management of advanced heart failure, focusing on the role of management of coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, and mechanical circulatory support.

RECENT FINDINGS

The patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure requiring revascularization are at higher risk than the rest of the general population. Coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous intervention can be used depending on varied patient characteristics and coronary anatomy. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation, Mitraclip and transcatheter ventricular restoration help in tackling the valvular and left ventricular remodeling concerns often seen in this patient population. Temporary hemodynamic circulatory support helps stabilizing patients in cardiogenic shock while long-term support can help bridge them to more definitive therapies.

SUMMARY

The management strategies in this disease state are ever evolving with robust evidence coming in support of interventional therapies whenever deemed appropriate. It is the multidisciplinary patient-centered approach, which yields maximum benefit out of these complex interventions.