Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Medical Therapy in Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients With 3-Vessel Disease

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for Left Main Disease in Patients With and Without Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Patients with left main coronary artery disease presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represent a high-risk and understudied subgroup of patients with atherosclerosis.

Objective

To assess clinical outcomes after PCI vs CABG in patients with left main disease with vs without ACS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Data were pooled from 4 trials comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents vs CABG in patients with left main disease who were considered equally suitable candidates for either strategy (SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL). Patients were categorized as presenting with or without ACS. Kaplan-Meier event rates through 5 years and Cox model hazard ratios were generated, and interactions were tested. Patients were enrolled in the individual trials from 2004 through 2015. Individual patient data from the trials were pooled and reconciled from 2020 to 2021, and the analyses pertaining to the ACS subgroup were performed from March 2022 through February 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was death through 5 years. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), procedural MI, stroke, and repeat revascularization.

Results

Among 4394 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [59-73] years; 3371 [76.7%] male and 1022 [23.3%] female) randomized to receive PCI or CABG, 1466 (33%) had ACS. Patients with ACS were more likely to have diabetes, prior MI, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%, and higher SYNTAX scores. At 30 days, patients with ACS had higher all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 3.40; 95% CI, 1.81-6.37; P < .001) and cardiovascular death (HR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.69-6.08; P < .001) compared with those without ACS. Patients with ACS also had higher rates of spontaneous MI (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.25-2.31; P < .001) through 5 years. The rates of all-cause mortality through 5 years with PCI vs CABG were 10.9% vs 11.5% (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68-1.27) in patients with ACS and 11.3% vs 9.6% (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.95-1.50) in patients without ACS (P = .22 for interaction). The risk of early stroke was lower with PCI vs CABG (ACS: HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.12-1.25; no ACS: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.75), whereas the 5-year risks of spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization were higher with PCI vs CABG (spontaneous MI: ACS: HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.09-2.77; no ACS: HR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.94-4.72; repeat revascularization: ACS: HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.19-2.09; no ACS: HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.54-2.33), regardless of ACS status.

Conclusion and Relevance

Among largely stable patients undergoing left main revascularization and with predominantly low to intermediate coronary anatomical complexity, those with ACS had higher rates of early death. Nonetheless, rates of all-cause mortality through 5 years were similar with PCI vs CABG in this high-risk subgroup. The relative advantages and disadvantages of PCI vs CABG in terms of early stroke and long-term spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization were consistent regardless of ACS status.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00114972, NCT00422968, NCT01496651, NCT01205776.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention compared to coronary artery bypass grafting in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) affects millions of patients. Although an invasive strategy can improve survival, the optimal treatment [i.e., percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] is not clear. We performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting outcomes between PCI and CABG in patients with NSTE-ACS. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were assessed. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Inverse variance method and random model were performed. We identified 13 observational studies (48,891 patients). No significant difference was found in the primary endpoint [CABG vs. PCI, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70; 1.23]. CABG was associated with lower long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54; 0.76) and lower long-term re-revascularization (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30; 0.47). There was no significant difference in long-term myocardial infarction (CABG vs. PCI, IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50; 1.84) and peri-operative mortality (CABG vs. PCI, odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI 0.94; 1.95). For the treatment of NSTE-ACS, CABG and PCI are associated with similar rates of long-term mortality and myocardial infarction. CABG is associated with lower rates of long-term MACE and re-revascularization. Randomized comparisons in this setting are necessary.

Comparison of invasive treatment strategies in patients with non–ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the mortality associated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with non–ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

Methods

We searched publications from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception until December 23, 2020. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing all-cause mortality after treatment with CABG versus PCI for patients with NSTE-ACS with minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) differences from RCTs and adjusted RMST differences from observational studies were computed by reconstructing time-to-event data from published Kaplan–Meier curves. Extracted hazard ratios (HRs) were also assessed as a secondary analysis.

Results

Our systematic review included an individual participant data analysis of 3 RCTs and 8 observational studies. A meta-regression showed a significant association between log-transformed HRs and duration of follow-up (−0.009 [95% confidence interval (CI), −0.002 to −0.016] log-HR per 1-year longer follow-up; P = .037), suggesting a violation of the proportional hazard assumption. Analysis of 6 studies with available RMST data showed a significant inverse association between adjusted RMST differences and cutoff years (slope, −0.028 [95% CI, −0.042 to −0.013] year difference per 1-year longer cutoff; P < .005), suggesting a longer survival benefit in the CABG arm compared with the PCI arm with longer follow-up.

Conclusions

There was a trend toward a benefit of CABG compared with PCI in the longer follow-up in patients with NSTE-ACS. A large, well-designed RCT with longer follow-up is needed to obtain definitive evidence on this topic.