Outcomes of a percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in octogenarians

Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients aged 80 years old and above: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ischaemic heart disease remains the main cause of death in the world. With increasing age, frailty and comorbidities, senior patients aged 80 years old and above who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at higher risk of mortality and other complications.

AIMS

We aimed to examine the overall outcomes for this group of patients.

METHODS

Four databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, SCOPUS and CENTRAL) were searched. Studies with patients aged 80 years old and above who underwent PCI for all indications were included. Pooled outcomes of all-cause death, cardiac death, in-hospital death, subsequent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), subsequent myocardial infarction (MI), subsequent congestive cardiac failure (CCF), and overall major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were obtained for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

From 2,566,004 patients, the pooled cumulative incidence of death was 19.22%, cardiac death was 7.78%, in-hospital death was 7.16%, subsequent stroke/TIA was 1.54%, subsequent MI was 3.58%, subsequent CCF was 4.74%, and MACE was 17.51%. The mortality rate of all patients was high when followed up for 3 years (33.27%). ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients had more outcomes of in-hospital death (14.24% vs 4.89%), stroke/TIA (1.93% vs 0.12%), MI (3.68 vs 1.55%) and 1-year mortality (26.16% vs 13.62%), when compared to non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high mortality rate at 1 year and 3 years post-PCI in the overall population of senior patients aged 80 years old and above, regardless of indication. This necessitates further studies to explore the implications of these observations.

The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

The question of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains among the most important questions in the treatment of coronary artery disease. The leading North American and European societies largely agree on the current guidelines for the revascularization of unprotected left-main disease (ULMD) and multivessel disease (MVD) which are largely supported by the outcomes of several large randomized trials including SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL. While these trials are of the highest quality, currently available, they suffer several limitations, including the use of bare metal and/or first-generation drug-eluting stents in early trials and lack of updated surgical outcomes data. The objective of this review is to briefly discuss these key early trials, as well as explore contemporary studies, to provide insight on the current state of coronary revascularization. Evidence suggests that in ULMD and MVD, there are similar mortality rates for CABG and PCI but PCI is associated with fewer "early" strokes, whereas CABG is associated with fewer "late" strokes, myocardial infarctions, and lower need for repeat revascularization. Additionally, studies suggest that CABG remains superior to PCI in patients with intermediate/high SYNTAX scores and in MVD with concomitant proximal left anterior descending (pLAD) artery stenosis. Despite the preceding research and its basis for our current guidelines, there remains significant variation in care that has yet to be quantified. Emerging studies evaluating second-generation drug-eluting stents, specific lesion anatomy, and minimally invasive and hybrid approaches to CABG may lend itself to more individualized patient care.