PCI versus CABG for multivessel coronary disease in diabetics

Objectives: To explore the clinical performance of a strategy of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with multivessel disease (MVD) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), when it is based on clinical judgment. Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for poor outcome after PCI. However, PCI may result in better outcome if the choice of revascularization (PCI versus CABG) is based on the physician decision, rather than randomization. Limited experiences have compared revascularization by DES‐PCI versus CABG in DM patients with MVD. Methods: From August 2004 to August 2005, 220 consecutive DM patients with MVD underwent DES‐PCI (93) or CABG (127) at our Institution. The type of revascularization was dependent on patient and/or physician choice. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stroke. Results: Compared with PCI patients, CABG patients had higher prevalence of 3‐vessel disease (P < 0.001), significant LAD involvement (P < 0.001), presence of total occlusions (P = 0.04), collateral circulation (P < 0.001). At 2‐year follow‐up, MACCE were not different between CABG group and DES‐PCI group (OR 1.2; P = 0.6) and, only when the clinical judgment on the revascularization choice was excluded at propensity analysis, DES‐PCI increased the risk of 24‐month MACCE in total population (OR 1.8; P = 0.04). Conclusions: For patients with DM and MVD, a clinical judgment‐based revascularization by DES‐PCI is not associated with worse 2‐year outcome compared with CABG. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Validating the EXCEL hypothesis: A propensity score matched 3‐year comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft in left main patients with SYNTAX score ≤32

Objectives : The aim of this study is to verify the study hypothesis of the EXCEL trial by comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in an EXCEL‐like population of patients. Background : The upcoming EXCEL trial will test the hypothesis that left main patients with SYNTAX score ≤32 experience similar rates of 3‐year death, myocardial infarction (MI), or cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) following revascularization by PCI or CABG. Methods : We compared the 3‐year rates of death/MI/CVA and death/MI/CVA/target vessel revascularization (MACCE) in 556 patients with left main disease and SYNTAX score ≤32 undergoing PCI (n = 285) or CABG (n = 271). To account for confounders, outcome parameters underwent extensive statistical adjustment. Results : The unadjusted incidence of death/MI/CVA was similar between PCI and CABG (12.7% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.892), while MACCE were higher in the PCI group compared to the CABG group (27.0% vs. 11.8%, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching, PCI was not associated with a significant increase in the rate of death/MI/CVA (11.8% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.948), while MACCE were more frequently noted among patients treated with PCI (28.8% vs. 14.1%, P = 0.002). Adjustment by means of SYNTAX score and EUROSCORE, covariates with and without propensity score, and propensity score alone did not change significantly these findings. Conclusions : In an EXCEL‐like cohort of patients with left main disease, there seems to be a clinical equipoise between PCI and CABG in terms of death/MI/CVA. However, even in patients with SYNTAX score ≤32, CABG is superior to PCI when target vessel revascularization is included in the combined endpoint. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Percutaneous versus surgical revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease: A single center 10 year follow‐up of SOS trial patients

Objectives: To compare 10 year outcomes including death, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), repeat revascularization (RR), and severity of angina (CCS) after randomization to stent supported percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical revascularization (CABG) in a single center participating in the SOS trial. Background: Randomized studies show increased RR following PCI, but otherwise similar results to CABG in selected mutlivessel disease patients with up to 5 year follow up. There is no 10 year data available. Materials and methods: The analysis involved 100 patients randomized into the SOS study in Poland. Results: Patients were well matched for baseline demographic and angiographic characteristics. During 9.6 ± 0.85 year observation, there was no significant difference between groups for survival, CCS, and LVEF. Increased RR occurred following PCI; 21 (42%) vs. 9 (18%), P < 0.05. As a consequence, the MACCE was also significantly higher following PCI; 36 (72%) vs. 28 (56%), P < 0.05. Excess RR predominantly occurred in the first year and diminished over time with numerically less RR following PCI from year 5 to 10; 2 (4%) vs. 7 (14%), P = ns. Conclusions: These findings suggest that patients with multivessel coronary artery disease technically suitable for either stent supported PCI or CABG have very similar 10 year outcomes with respect to mortality, angina class, LVEF, and MACCE other than RR. Excess RR following PCI predominantly occurs in early years and is numerically lower following PCI in years 5–10. This underscores the need for longer‐term follow up from randomized trials. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Impact of time factor and patient characteristics on the efficacy of PCI vs CABG for left main coronary disease: A meta-analysis

Background:The impact of time factor and patient characteristics on the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease is unclear.Methods:We searched PubMed and Embase for related trials. Two outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis stratified by follow-up duration and 7 factors of interest related to patient characteristics. Random-effects meta-regression was performed to calculate P values for trend and those for subgroup differences.Results:We included 11 articles from 5 trials. Compared with CABG, PCI increased MACCE at the end of 3-year (hazard ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.40, I² = 0) and 5-year (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.20–1.48, I² = 0) follow-up, but did not increase all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The logarithm of HR of PCI vs CABG for MACCE increased as follow-up duration increased (β = 0.057, P = .025). PCI vs CABG consistently increased 5-year MACCE across various subgroups defined by 7 factors of interest (P_subgroup ranged from .156 to .830).Conclusions:The long-term benefit of CABG vs PCI on MACCE in patients with left main coronary disease is consistent across patients with different clinical characteristics. The relative benefit of CABG on MACCE is driven by that of CABG on unplanned revascularization, and becomes greater as time goes on.     

Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundTreatment of left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the optimal choice of therapy when treating LMCAD in patients with CKD.MethodWe performed an electronic database search of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for all studies that compared PCI with CABG when treating LMCAD in the setting of CKD. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events, all-cause mortality, and repeat revascularization.ResultsOur analysis included 5 studies (2 randomized controlled trial and 3 retrospective) representing a total of 1212 patients. Mean follow up was 3.4 ± 1.3 years. Our study demonstrated a significant reduction in MACCE for patients treated with CABG compared with PCI (odd ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55–0.95, P = 0.02, I² = 0%). We also found a significant reduction in both MI (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.34–0.87; P = 0.01; I² = 0%) and repeat revascularization (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.10–0.51; P < 0.001, I² = 63%) in the CABG group. However, CABG was associated with increased risks of cerebrovascular disease events compared with PCI (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.02–4.08; P = 0.04, I² = 0%).ConclusionIn patients with CKD requiring LMCAD intervention, CABG is associated with a lower risk of MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization, however it was associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular accidents when compared to patients who received PCI therapy. Further RCTs with sufficient power are required to confirm these findings.     

Simultaneous Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Conventional Strategies for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A 10-Year Follow-Up

BackgroundAlthough evidence is sufficient to confirm that hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is safe and effective in the short term, its value in the long run is debatable.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the long-term outcomes of HCR with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel disease.MethodsThree groups of patients, 540 each, receiving HCR, CABG, or PCI between June 2007 to September 2018, were matched using propensity score matching. Patients were stratified by EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) II (low ≤0.9; 0.9 < medium <1.5; high ≥1.5) and SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (low ≤22; 22 < medium <33; high ≥33). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) scores were compared among the 3 groups.ResultsIn terms of MACCE and SAQ, HCR performed similarly to off-pump CABG but significantly outperformed PCI (P < 0.001). In the low-to-medium EuroSCORE II and medium-to-high SYNTAX score tertiles, MACCE rates in the HCR group were significantly lower than those in the PCI (EuroSCORE II: low, 30.7% vs 41.2%; P = 0.006; medium, 31.3% vs 41.7%; P = 0.013; SYNTAX score: medium, 27.6% vs 41.2%; P = 0.018; high, 32.4% vs 52.7%; P = 0.011) but were similar to those in the CABG group. In the high EuroSCORE II stratum, HCR had a lower MACCE rate than CABG (31.9% vs 47.0%; P = 0.041) and PCI (31.9% vs 53.7%; P = 0.015).ConclusionsCompared with conventional strategies, HCR provided satisfactory long-term outcomes in MACCE and functional status for multivessel disease.     

One‐Year Follow‐Up of Nonrandomized Comparison between Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery and Drug‐Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Elderly Patients (Aged ≥75 Years)

Purpose: The present observational study compares in‐hospital and 12‐month clinical outcomes in elderly patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease treated either with coronary artery bypass grafting or drug‐eluting stent. Methods: From January 2004 to December 2007, 211 patients (pts) with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis, aged 75 or older, underwent coronary revascularization either with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (106 pts) or drug‐eluting stent (DES) (105 pts). The decision to treat with CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was dependent on the patient's and the physician's choice. The occurrence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE: death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke) and revascularizations was recorded after 1 year of follow‐up. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed using a propensity score method to take potential baseline differences between groups into account. Results: In‐hospital MACCE rates were 5.7% and 3.8% in the CABG and PCI groups, respectively (P = 0.748). After 1 year of follow‐up, these rates were, respectively, 13.9% and 14.9% (P = 0.841), and rates for target vessel revascularization at 12 months were 1.0% and 13.9% (P < 0.001). The PCI group was significantly associated with older age, dyslipidemia, history of cancer, high Euroscore, elevated creatininemia, single‐vessel disease, fewer chronic occlusions of the left anterior descending artery, and more LMCA stenosis ≥70%. The multivariate logistic regression analysis was adjusted for age, diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction, Euroscore, and plasma creatininemia and stratified on the score of propensity to be treated with PCI. In the subgroup below median propensity score, the adjusted odds ratio for 1‐year MACCE was OR = 0.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.14 to 5.98; P = 0.924) whereas OR was 0.16 (0.04–0.69; P = 0.013) in the subgroup above median propensity score. Conclusions: In patients with a high probability of being treated with PCI (older age, high Euroscore, high creatininemia, single‐vessel disease, …), the 1‐year risk of MACCE was significantly lower in PCI‐ than in CABG‐treated subjects. No significant difference was found in other cases.     

无保护左主干病变冠状动脉搭桥术与雷帕霉素洗脱支架治疗的对比研究

目的:回顾性分析无保护左主干病变患者使用雷帕霉素洗脱支架(DES)的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与冠状动脉旁路移植手术(CABG)治疗的中、远期疗效,并探讨应用SYNTAX SCORE来评估病变风险与临床事件的相关性。方法:本研究回顾性收集了176例无保护左主干病变患者,其中CABG组80例,PCI-DES组96例。收集患者的基本情况、左主干病变特点及SYNTAX评分、CABG和PCI手术情况,随访患者术后3年的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)的发生率。结果:术后3年随访,PCI-DES组与CABG组的MACCE发生率及无MACCE生存率比较差异无统计学意义,但PCI组靶血管再次血运重建率(TVR)明显高于CABG组(P<0.05)。用SYNTAX SCORE把PCI-DES和CABG两组患者分为高积分组(≥30.0)和低积分组(<30.0):高积分组,术后3年PCI-DES亚组MACCE事件发生率高于CABG亚组(23.53%∶18.05%,P<0.05),无MACCE事件生存率低于CABG亚组(51.47%∶70.83%,P<0.05)。低积分组,术后3年MACCE事件发生率CABG亚组高于PCI-DES亚组(12.50%∶7.14%,P>0.05),而无MACCE事件生存率低于PCI-DES亚组(75.00%∶82.14%,P<0.05)。结论:PCI-DES与CABG治疗无保护左主干病变患者总体疗效相似。用SYNTAX SCORE指导无保护左主干病变血管重建方式的选择有重要价值,但在不同的患者人群中,仍应结合临床特征和冠状动脉病变特点选择恰当的血运重建术。     

Comparison of three treatment strategies for patients with triple‐vessel coronary disease and left ventricular dysfunction

Introduction

Current guidelines recommend coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with multivessel coronary disease and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. However, some patients undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or solely medical therapy (MT) in actual practice. The comparison of long‐term outcomes of these three treatment strategies in real world is unclear.

Methods

A total of 699 consecutive patients in a single centre from 2004 to 2011 who had TVD and LV ejection fraction ≤40%, no prior PCI or CABG and had completed a median 6.2‐year follow‐up were evaluated. The primary endpoint was all‐cause death. The secondary endpoints included cardiac death, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of all‐cause death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, or stroke), and the individual components of the composite endpoint.

Results

One hundred forty‐two patients (20.3%) underwent PCI, 201 (28.8%) underwent CABG while 356 (50.9%) received MT alone. MT alone was associated with the worst survival (P < 0.001). Compared with PCI, CABG was associated with a similar risk of all‐cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52‐1.41; P = 0.54) but lower risks of cardiac death (HR, 0.47; 95%CI, 0.25‐0.91; P = 0.03), repeat revascularization (HR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.10‐0.85; P = 0.02), and MACCE (HR, 0.63; 95%CI, 0.43‐0.93; P = 0.02).

Conclusions

For patients with TVD and LV dysfunction, both CABG and PCI were associated with a lower risk of mortality compared with MT alone. Compared with PCI, CABG has a lower risk of cardiac death, repeat revascularization, and MACCE.

     

Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with noninsulin treated type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The outcomes and prognosis of revascularization by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with noninsulin‐treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (NITDM) have not yet been well established.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searching Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library from inception until May 2016. Heterogeneity was evaluated, and the pooled hazard ratio (HR) was calculated by using a fixed‐effect model. A random‐effect model was used when statistically significant heterogeneity was observed (I² ≥ 50%). All data analyses were carried out by using RevMan 5.3 and STATA software 12.0.

Results

A total of 4 RCTs involving 5 studies, consisting of 2270 patients with noninsulin‐treated type 2 diabetes mellitus, were identified. Compared with CABG‐treated patients, PCI‐treated patients had significantly higher all‐cause mortality (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.91; P = .04), myocardial infarction (HR 2.14; 95% CI 1.40 to 3.27; P = .0004), repeated revascularization (HR 2.52; 95% CI 1.77 to 3.57; P < .00001), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.20‐1.87; P = .0004). However, PCI was associated with lower incidence of stoke (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90; P = .02).

Conclusions

In NITDM patients, our study suggests that CABG surgery is associated with reduced risk of mortality and morbidity, although with increased incidence of stroke compared with percutaneous coronary intervention. The decision if to have percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG surgery should factor the risk for stroke of the patients when considering CABG over percutaneous coronary intervention. Adequately powered RCTs are needed to confirm the results of this meta‐analysis.     

Provisional stenting for multivessel PCI

Background: Bare stents reduce acute complications and repeat revascularization following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but are costly and may lead to in‐stent restenosis. It remains unclear whether stents should be universally implanted or whether provisional stenting mainly to suboptimal balloon dilatation results is an acceptable approach for multivessel PCI. Objective: To compare the long‐term clinical restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) of stented and non‐stented coronary artery lesions in patients who had multivessel PCI. Methods: We performed retrospective analysis of matched data from 129 consecutive patients who underwent multivessel PCI (at least optimal balloon angioplasty to one coronary artery segment and balloon angioplasty plus stenting to another coronary artery in the same patient, all lesions are de novo native coronary artery lesions with vessel diameter ?2.5?mm). The study endpoint was restenosis and repeat revascularization at one‐year follow‐up. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Low in‐hospital MACE (3.1%). Acute myocardial infarction, emergency revascularization via either PCI or CABG was detected and angiographic success was achieved in 99.3% of lesions in both groups. The rate of clinically driven angiographic restenosis and TLR at one‐year (follow‐up?100%) was similar (17.1% versus 18.6%, P?=?0.871, and 13.9% versus 16.3%, P?=?0.728, for optimal balloon angioplasty versus provisional stenting. Conclusions: The main findings from this study are that long‐term angiographic restenosis and TLR was comparable for optimal balloon angioplasty and provisional stenting, suggesting that provisional stenting is an acceptable approach for multivessel PCI.     

SYNTAX评分对无保护左主干病变选择不同血运重建方式的价值研究

目的:应用SYNTAX评分评估冠状动脉(冠脉)无保护左主干病变(ULMCA)的复杂程度及其与临床事件的相关性,探讨冠脉无保护左主干病变患者的最佳血运重建方式。方法:回顾性收集了206例从2003-02至2008-01采用经皮冠脉介入治疗—药物洗脱支架(PCI-DES)和冠脉旁路移植术(CABG)的无保护左主干病变患者,其中CABG组94例,PCI-DES组112例。收集患者的基本情况、左主干病变特点及SYNTAX评分、CABG和PCI手术情况,随访患者术后3年的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)发生率以及冠脉造影复查情况。结果:①两组患者基本情况、左主干病变特点及SYNTAX评分等方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但CABG组合并三支血管病变多于PCI-DES组,差异有统计学意义[74.47%(70例)vs.41.07%(46例),P<0.01]。②住院期间CABG组的MACCE发生率较PCI-DES组高(P<0.05)。术后3年随访,两组的MACCE发生率及无MACCE生存率比较差异无统计学意义,但PCI-DES组靶血管再次血运重建率明显高于CABG组(P<0.05)。③两组间SYNTAX评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。PCI-DES组中,高积分(≥30.0)患者术后3年MACCE发生率明显高于低积分(<30.0)患者(P<0.01),而术后3年无MACCE生存率低于低积分患者(P<0.01)。CABG组中,高积分和低积分患者术后3年MACCE发生率及无MACCE生存率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。高积分患者中,术后3年PCI-DES组MACCE发生率高于CABG组,无MACCE生存率低于CABG组(P均<0.05)。低积分患者中,术后3年PCI-DES组MACCE发生率低于CABG组,无MACCE生存率PCI-DES组高于CABG组(P均<0.05),差异均有统计学意义。结论:用SYNTAX评分指导无保护左主干病变的血管重建方式选择有重要价值,但在不同的患者中,仍应结合临床特征和冠脉病变特点选择恰当的血运重建术。     

A Comparison Between Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Background:

Unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease occurs in 3% to 5% of patients with coronary artery disease and is mainly treated by coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Drug‐eluting stents (DESs) have renewed interest for the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment of ULMCA stenosis. This study compared the long‐term clinical outcome of PCI with DESs or CABG in real world patients with ULMCA disease.

Hypothesis:

PCI with DESs may be a better treatment for ULMCA disease compared with CABG.

Methods:

Consecutive patients who had coronary revascularization because of ULMCA disease in Zhongshan Hospital, from May 2003 to November 2009, were retrospectively enrolled. They were classified in the PCI or the CABG group according to treatments that were given initially. Of 515 patients having follow‐up data, 233 were treated by PCI, whereas 282 were treated by CABG. The patients in the CABG group were of older age, had higher European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) and Synergy Between PCI With Taxus Drug‐Eluting Stent and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) scores, and had longer hospitalization stays than the PCI group.

Results:

At the end of follow‐up, there was no difference in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between the 2 groups. However, the incidence of cardiac death (0.4% vs 4.6%) in the PCI group was less than that in the CABG group, whereas target vessel revascularization (7.3% vs 3.2%) was higher in the PCI group.

Conclusions:

In ULMCA disease, CABG tends to be chosen in patients with higher risk according to the EuroSCORE and SYNTAX scores. PCI with DESs seemed to have favorable early and long‐term clinical outcomes compared with CABG in our center. Clin. Cardiol. 2012 DOI: 10.1002/clc.22070 Qing Qin, MD, and Juying Qian, MD, contributed equally to this work. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Vs Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Disease: G-LM Registry

Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) has been the standard of care for revascularization for patients with obstructive unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMCA). There have been multiple randomized and registry data demonstrating the technical and clinical efficacy of PCI in certain patients with ULMCA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of ULMCA PCI as compared to CABG in patients requiring revascularization in three Gulf countries. All ULMCA cases treated by PCI with DES versus CABG were retrospectively identified from 14 centers in 3 Arab Gulf countries (KSA, UAE, and Bahrain) from January 2015 to December 2019. In total, 2138 patients were included: 1222 were treated with PCI versus 916 with CABG. Patients undergoing PCI were older, and had higher comorbidities and mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE). Aborted cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock were reported more in the PCI group at hospital presentation. In addition, lower ejection fractions were reported in the PCI group. In hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) occurred more in patients undergoing CABG than PCI. At median follow-up of 15 months (interquartile range, 30), no difference was observed in freedom from revascularization, MACCE, or total mortality between those treated with PCI and CABG. While findings are similar to Western data registries, continued follow-up will be needed to ascertain whether this pattern continues into latter years.     

Outcomes from patients with multi‐vessel disease following primary PCI

Background: CABG and PCI are effective means for revascularization of patients with multi‐vessel coronary artery disease, but previous studies have not focused on treatment of patients that first undergo primary PCI. Methods: Among patients enrolled in the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE), clinical outcomes for patients presenting with STEMI treated with primary PCI were compared according to whether residual stenoses were treated medically, surgically, or with staged PCI. Clinical characteristics and data pertaining to major adverse cardiac events during hospitalization and 6 months after discharge were collected. Results: Of the 1,705 patients included, 1,345 (79%) patients were treated medically, 303 (18%) underwent staged PCI, and 57 (3.3%) underwent CABG following primary PCI. Hospital mortality was lowest among patients treated with staged PCI (Medical = 5.7%; PCI = 0.7%; CABG = 3.5%; P < 0.001 [PCI vs. Medical]), a finding that persisted after risk adjustment (Odds Ratio PCI vs. Medical = 0.16, [0.04–0.68]; P = 0.01). Six month postdischarge mortality likewise was lowest in the staged PCI group (Medical = 3.1%; PCI = 0.8%; CABG = 4.0%; P = 0.04 [PCI vs. Medical]). Patients revascularized surgically were rehospitalized less frequently (Medical = 20%; PCI = 19%; CABG = 6.3%; P < 0.05) and underwent fewer unscheduled procedures (Medical = 9.8%; PCI = 10.0%; CABG = 0.0%; P < 0.02). Conclusions: The results of this multinational registry demonstrate that hospital mortality in patients who undergo staged percutaneous revascularization of multivessel coronary disease following primary PCI is very low. Patients undergoing CABG following primary PCI are hospitalized less frequently and undergo fewer unplanned catheter‐based procedures. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

合并射血分数减低的复杂冠状动脉病变患者接受不同血运重建术疗效分析

目的探讨冠状动脉左主干(LM)病变和(或)三支血管病变的冠心病患者,在同时合并射血分数减低的心力衰竭(HFrEF)情况下,接受不同血运重建策略治疗对近期及远期预后的影响。方法选取2009年1月至2018年1月就诊于首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院合并HFrEF并成功行血运重建治疗的LM病变和(或)三支病变冠心病患者进行病例注册分析。根据纳入及排除标准最终入选患者902例,其中接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)置入药物洗脱支架228例(PCI组),接受冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗674例(CABG组)。根据术后平均3.1年随访资料对两组患者主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)进行比较,同时分析左心功能变化情况。结果经单因素回归分析后,将差异具有统计学意义的因素(吸烟史、陈旧性前壁心肌梗死病史、既往PCI史、既往CABG史、SYNTAX评分)纳入Cox多因素回归分析,结果显示:成功进行血运重建治疗后1年CABG组患者的MACCE发生率高于PCI组(17.66%比14.04%,HR 1.362,95%CI 1.211~2.070,P<0.010)。对MACCE单个事件比较显示,CABG组患者的全因死亡率高于PCI组(12.61%比6.14%,HR 2.134,95%CI 1.832~3.182,P<0.010),而再次血运重建率较低(2.97%比4.82%,HR 0.696,95%CI 0.518~0.922,P=0.026);两组患者卒中及因心力衰竭入院事件发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。经多因素回归分析校正混杂因素,术后3年随访结果显示:两组患者的MACCE发生率相似,同时在单独事件全因死亡风险、心原性死亡风险方面差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。相较于PCI组,CABG组具有较高的卒中发生率(5.93%比3.07%,HR 1.894,95%CI 1.528~2.673,P=0.014)和较低的再次血运重建率(8.31%比13.16%,HR 0.558,95%CI 0.362~0.714,P<0.010)。并依据SYNTAX评分分值分为SYNTAX评分低分(≤22分)、SYNTAX评分中分(23~32分)、SYNTAX评分高分(≥33分),单因素回归分析筛选各组间具有统计学差异的因素纳入Cox多因素回归分析,经校正混杂因素后术后3年随访结果显示,对于SYNTAX评分低分患者,CABG组心原性死亡风险高于PCI组(HR 1.253,95%CI 0.748~2.003,P=0.048),两组全因死亡风险相似;而对于SYNTAX评分高分患者,CABG组的全因死亡事件、心原性死亡发生率均略低于PCI组,但差异均无统计学意义(HR 0.796,95%CI 0.318~1.274,P=0.057;HR 0.941,95%CI 0.295~1.681,P=0.623)。结论合并HFrEF的复杂冠状动脉病变的冠心病患者接受PCI的远期预后并不劣于接受CABG治疗,对于存在左心功能障碍的冠心病患者,PCI也可作为血运重建治疗策略。     

Is the advantage of coronary bypass surgery over percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic patients with severe multivessel disease influenced by the status of insulin requirement?

Several studies have shown that coronary artery bypass graft surgery （CABG） is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） in patients with diabetes and multi-vessel disease. Whether this advantage of CABG over PCI is confined to diabetics who require insulin is unknown. We review the published literature comparing CABG with PCI in diabetics including 8 cohorts and 4,786 patients. There was a lower rate for all-cause mortality （Relative risk （RR）： 0.78, 95% confidence interval （CI）： 0.62-0.99）, and for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events （MACCE, RR： 0.59, 95% CI： 0.47-0.75） for CABG compared to PCI. Composite outcome of mortality, myocardial infarction and stoke was similar between CABG and PCI （RR： 0.87, 95% CI： 0.54-1.42）. Visual inspection of the forest plots showed that in most analyses, the point estimates of the RR are similar between the insulin requiring group and non-insulin requiring group. On meta-regression, there was no interaction between status of insulin requirement and revascularization strategies （P 〉 0.05 for all）. The pre- sented data on the still unpublished analysis of the FREEDOM trial showed similar results. Thus, in the current era, CABG is superior to PCI with lower mortality and MACCE rates, but the state of insulin requirement had no effect on the outcomes from the two revascularization strategies.     

Patient preferences for coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease

Objectives: Determine if patients prefer multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (mv‐PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for treatment of symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease (mv‐CAD) despite high 1‐year risk. Background: Patient risk perception and preference for CABG or mv‐PCI to treat medically refractory mv‐CAD are poorly understood. We hypothesize that patients prefer mv‐PCI instead of CABG even when quoted high mv‐PCI risk. Methods: 585 patients and 31 physicians were presented standardized questionnaires with a hypothetical scenario describing chest pain and medically refractory mv‐CAD. CABG or mv‐PCI was presented as treatment options. Risk scenarios included variable 1‐year risks of death, stroke, and repeat procedures for mv‐PCI and fixed risks for CABG. Participants indicated their preference of revascularization method based on the presented risks. We calculated the odds that patients or physicians would favor mv‐PCI over CABG across a range of quoted risks of death, stroke, and repeat procedures. Results: For nearly all quoted risks, patients preferred mv‐PCI over CABG, even when the risk of death was double the risk with CABG or the risk of repeat procedures was more than three times that for CABG (P < 0.0001). Compared to patients, physicians chose mv‐PCI less often than CABG as the risk of death and repeat procedures increased (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Conclusion: Patients favor mv‐PCI over CABG to treat mv‐CAD, even if 1‐year risks of death and repeat procedures far exceed risk with CABG. Physicians are more influenced by actual risk and prefer mv‐PCI less than patients despite similarly quoted 1‐year risks. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Patients With Intermediate SYNTAX II Score

Patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score have been representing a confusion in our daily practice for interventional cardiologists whether to treat them by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using second generation drug eluting stents or by coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We enrolled 214 consecutive patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score to undergo revascularization (109 patients underwent PCI and 105 patients underwent CABG) after Heart Team discussion. We compared both procedures with respect to the primary composite end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization or stroke) at 40 months post procedure. At 40 months post revascularization procedure, the primary end-point occurred in 22 patients and 15 patients in the PCI and CABG groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-3.14; P = 0.13). No significant differences were detected between both groups regarding the composite incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke. CABG significantly provided better quality of life than PCI for patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score. In patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score, there was no statistically significant difference between the PCI using second generation drug eluting stents and CABG with respect to the incidence of MACCE at 40 months post revascularization procedure.     

糖尿病并发多支冠状动脉病变患者血管重建两种主要术式比较

目的:比较临床实践中血管重建术式对糖尿病并多支冠状动脉病变患者临床结果的影响。方法:2006年6月~2010年3月,确诊为糖尿病并发多支冠脉病变的冠心病患者226例,非随机行冠状动脉介入治疗（支架术,PCI)和冠脉搭桥术(CABG)对照研究。分析患者随访1年的临床结果。结果:CABG组和PCI组分别入选患者为105例和121例。比较CABG组与PCI组患者的年龄［(63±6)岁 vs.(68±7)岁,P<0.05］和高血压病史(97.1% vs. 89.3%,P<0.05)均有显著性差异,其他的临床特性均无显著性差异。随访1年的临床结果显示,CABG组与PCI组比较再次血管重建（TVR）(1.0% vs. 18.2%,P<0.01)和主要心脑血管事件（MACCE）(14.3% vs. 28.1%,P<0.01)均有显著性差异;而比较非致死性心肌梗死,卒中和死亡则无显著性差异。结论:糖尿病并多支病冠脉变的冠心病患者血管重建时CABG优于PCI。