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

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.

Long-term effects of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery in elderly with multi-vessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The most prevalent illness among the elderly is coronary artery disease (CAD), and most of this population present with multi-vessel CAD which constitutes a common management difficulty among elderly people. This study aimed to compare long-term consequences of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) revascularization in elderly patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease.

RESULTS

This retrospective study evaluated 100 elderly patients with multi-vessel CAD divided into two groups, group 1 the PCI group and group 2 the CABG group. The main findings of the study showed that CABG group had a longer hospital stay than the PCI group (8.16 vs. 2.02 days; P < 0.001). A considerably higher mean residual SYNTAX score was observed in the PCI group than CABG group which was 1.15 and 0.2, respectively (p-value < 0.001). The in-hospital major adverse cardiac events rate (MACE) in both groups was not statistically significant. Regarding the in-hospital mortality rate, although it was higher in the CABG group (6%) versus 2% in the PCI group, yet it was not statistically significant. The long-term MACE in this study revealed that 12.2% of PCI patients had heart failure compared to 6.4% in the CABG group, which was statistically insignificant. In the long-term follow-up, the revascularization rate of CABG group was higher than the PCI group; however, it was statistically insignificant. CABG group had a higher rate of stroke than PCI group being 4.3% and 2%, respectively; yet this difference was not statistically considerable. The long-term mortality rate among the PCI and CABG group was 10.2% and 4.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients with multi-vessel CAD, PCI with stenting, and CABG were statistically equivalent in long-term death and MI rates, stroke, repeat revascularization. A non-statistically notable distinction between the two groups as regards MACE, composite of death or MI, and all-cause mortality was found. This may have implication on choice of management strategy among elderly patients with multi-vessel CAD.

Smaller left ventricular end-systolic diameter and lower ejection fraction at baseline associated with greater ejection fraction improvement after revascularization among patients with left ventricular dysfunction

Objectives

To investigate the predictive roles of pre-operative left ventricular (LV) size and ejection fraction (EF) in EF improvement and outcome following revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and LV dysfunction.

Background

Revascularization may improve EF and long-term outcomes of patients with LV dysfunction. However, the determinants of EF improvement have not yet been investigated comprehensively.

Materials and methods

Patients with EF measurements before and 3 months after revascularization were enrolled in a cohort study (No. ChiCTR2100044378). All patients had baseline EF ≤ 40%. EF improvement was defined as absolute increase in EF > 5%. According to LV end-systolic diameter (LVESD) (severely enlarged or not) and EF (≤35% or of 36–40%) at baseline, patients were categorized into four groups.

Results

A total of 939 patients were identified. A total of 549 (58.5%) had EF improved. Both LVESD [odds ratio (OR) per 1 mm decrease, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04–1.07; P < 0.001] and EF (OR per 1% decrease, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03–1.10; P < 0.001) at baseline were predictive of EF improvement after revascularization. Patients with LVESD not severely enlarged and EF ≤ 35% had higher odds of being in the EF improved group in comparison with other three groups both in unadjusted and adjusted analysis (all P < 0.001). The median follow-up time was 3.5 years. Patients with LVESD not severely enlarged and EF ≤ 35% had significantly lower risk of all-cause death in comparison with patients with LVESD severely enlarged and EF ≤ 35% [hazard ratio (HR), 2.73; 95% CI, 1.28–5.82; P = 0.009], and tended to have lower risk in comparison with patients with LVESD severely enlarged and EF of 36–40% (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.93–4.27; P = 0.074).

Conclusion

Among CAD patients with reduced EF (≤ 40%) who underwent revascularization, smaller pre-operative LVESD and lower EF had greatest potential to have EF improvement and better outcome. Our findings imply the indication for revascularization in patients with LV dysfunction who presented with lower EF but smaller LV size.

Extent of Ejection Fraction Improvement After Revascularization Associated with Outcomes Among Patients with Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Purpose

Ejection fraction (EF) has been reported to be a major predictor of improved survival in patients with heart failure. However, it is largely unknown whether the extent of improvement in EF affects the subsequent risk of mortality. This study sought to investigate change in EF after revascularization and the implication of these changes on clinical outcomes among patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a cohort study (No. ChiCTR2100044378) of patients with reduced EF (≤40%) who received revascularization and had EF reassessment by echocardiography 3 months after revascularization. Patients were categorized according to the absolute change in EF: 1) EF worsened group (absolute decrease in EF >5%); 2) EF unchanged group (absolute change in EF −5% to 5%); 3) EF improved group (absolute increase in EF >5%).

Results

Of 974 patients, 84 (8.6%) had EF worsened, 317 (32.5%) had EF unchanged and 573 (58.8%) had EF improved. The median follow-up time was 3.5 years, during which 143 patients died. For each 5-unit increments in EF, the risk of death decreased by 20% (hazard ratio, HR, per 5% increases, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.86; P<0.001). Compared with EF improvement group, patients with EF worsened (HR, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.07–5.42; P<0.001) and patients with EF unchanged (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.40–3.01; P<0.001) had significantly higher risk of all-cause death.

Conclusion

Changes in EF were inversely associated with the risk of mortality. The extent of EF improvement after revascularization might be a potential factor which defines clinical outcomes.