Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Is the world ready for the STICH 3.0 trial?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is responsible for >50% of heart failures cases. Patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) are known to have poorer outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared to patients with a normal ejection fraction. Nevertheless, <1% of patients in coronary revascularization trials to date had iLVSD. The purpose of this review is to describe coronary revascularization modalities in patients with iLVSD and highlight the need for randomized controlled trial evidence comparing these treatments in this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Network meta-analytic findings of observational studies suggest that PCI is associated with higher rates of mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization but not stroke compared to CABG in iLVSD. In recent years, outcomes for patients undergoing PCI have improved as a result of advances in technologies and techniques.

SUMMARY

The optimal coronary revascularization modality in patients with iLVSD remains unknown. In observational studies, CABG appears superior to PCI; however, direct randomized evidence is absent and developments in PCI techniques have improved post-PCI outcomes in recent years. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure 3.0 consortium of trials will seek to address the clinical equipoise in coronary revascularization in patients with iLVSD.

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.

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

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers 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: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

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

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers 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

Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Revascularization in left ventricular dysfunction: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular dysfunction (LVD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with significant CAD and LVD are a high-risk patient population. They make up a minority of the cases from the largest, prospective coronary revascularization trials. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) Trial and its substudies are the most important and well cited in this field. The 10-year data from STICH showed that surgical revascularization was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy. Several smaller studies have confirmed that surgical revascularization carries a significant risk of short-term mortality but overall improved long-term outcomes in patients with LVD. Data from multiple observational studies further confirm that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is superior to percutaneous coronary revascularization for long-term survival and freedom from repeat revascularization in patients with LVD. We suggest that patients with LVD undergoing CABG should be considered for multiarterial grafting and that some patients may benefit from an off-pump procedure.

SUMMARY

Surgical revascularization confers a long-term survival benefit in patients with significant CAD and LVD. Further studies will be needed to precisely determine the ideal candidate for surgical versus percutaneous revascularization.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Using Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

The relative safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction remains controversial; therefore we conducted this meta-analysis to identify the optimal strategy for such cohorts. A comprehensive search of the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2003 to March 1, 2018 was performed to identify the eligible adjusted observational studies. The primary end point was all-cause death during the longest follow-up, and the generic inverse variance random-effect model was used to estimate the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Eight adjusted observational studies involving 10,268 patients were included. Compared with CABG, PCI with DES was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.60), cardiac mortality (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.95), myocardial infarction (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.24), and repeat revascularization (HR 4.95, 95% CI 3.28 to 7.46) in patients with coronary artery disease and LV systolic dysfunction. Besides, separate analysis of patients with LV ejection fraction <35% or left main and/or multivessel disease obtained similar results compared with the overall analysis. However, DES and CABG shared similar rates of stroke (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.26). In conclusion, CABG appears to be superior to PCI with DES for patients with coronary artery disease and LV systolic dysfunction, particularly in patients with severe LV systolic dysfunction or those with left main and/or multivessel disease.

Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes associated with Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Everolimus Eluting Stents: A Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to compare the mid-term adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (CABG) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) with Everolimus Eluting Stents (EES). Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing the mid-term (>1 year) adverse cardiovascular outcomes between CABG and PCI with EES. Odd Ratios (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software. A total number of 5207 patients were involved in this analysis. No significant difference was observed in mortality between CABG and EES with OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.73-1.10; P = 0.30. Moreover, CABG was associated with a high stroke rate, with OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45-1.17; P = 0.19, without any statistical significant. CABG was associated with significantly lower Major Adverse Cardiac Events and Myocardial Infarction with OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.05-2.04; P = 0.03 and OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.01-2.12; P = 0.05 respectively whereas PCI was associated with a significantly higher repeated revascularization with OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.76-2.77; P = 0.00001. In conclusion, significant differences were noted in several subgroups analyzing the mid-term cardiovascular outcomes between CABG and EES.