Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: The VA AWESOME multicenter registry: comparison with the randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the three-year survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in physician-directed and patient-choice registries with the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME) randomized trial results. BACKGROUND: The AWESOME multicenter randomized trial and registry compared the long-term survival after PCI and CABG for the treatment of patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one additional risk factor for adverse outcome with CABG. The randomized trial demonstrated comparable three-year survival. METHODS: Over a five-year period (1995 to 2000), 2,431 patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one of five risk factors (prior heart surgery, myocardial infarction within seven days, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, age >70 years, intra-aortic balloon required to stabilize) were identified. By physician consensus, 1,650 patients formed a physician-directed registry assigned to CABG (692), PCI (651) or further medical therapy (307), and 781 were angiographically eligible for random allocation; 454 of these patients constitute the randomized trial, and the remaining 327 constitute a patient choice registry. Survival for CABG and PCI was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: The CABG and PCI 36-month survival rates for randomized patients were 79% and 80%, respectively. The CABG and PCI 36-month survival rates were both 76% for the physician-directed subgroup; comparable survival rates for the patient-choice subgroup were 80% and 89%, respectively. None of the global log-rank tests for survival demonstrated significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both registries support the randomized trial conclusion: PCI is an alternative to CABG for some medically refractory high-risk patients.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: a multicenter,randomized trial

BACKGROUNDPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) are being applied to high-risk populations, but previous randomized trials comparing revascularization methods have excluded a number of important high-risk groups.OBJECTIVESThis five-year, multicenter, randomized clinical trial was designed to compare long-term survival among patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and a high risk of adverse outcomes assigned to either a CABG or a PCI strategy, which could include stents.METHODSPatients from 16 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers were screened to identify myocardial ischemia refractory to medical management and the presence of one or more risk factors for adverse outcome with CABG, including prior open-heart surgery, age >70 years, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, myocardial infarction within seven days or intraaortic balloon pump required. Clinically eligible patients (n = 2,431) underwent coronary angiography; 781 were angiographically acceptable; 454 (58% of eligible) patients consented to random assignment between CABG and PCI.RESULTSA total of 232 patients was randomized to CABG and 222 to PCI. The 30-day survivals for CABG and PCI were 95% and 97%, respectively. Survival rates for CABG and PCI were 90% versus 94% at six months and 79% versus 80% at 36 months (log-rank test, p = 0.46).CONCLUSIONSPercutaneous coronary intervention is an alternative to CABG for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and a high risk of adverse outcomes with CABG.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass graft surgery for diabetic patients with unstable angina and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: outcome of diabetic patients in the AWESOME randomized trial and registry

OBJECTIVES: This study compared survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with survival after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) among diabetics in the Veterans Affairs AWESOME (Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation) study randomized trial and registry of high-risk patients. BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that CABG may be superior to PCI for diabetics, but no comparisons have been made for diabetics at high risk for surgery. METHODS: Over five years (1995 to 2000), 2,431 patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one of five risk factors (prior CABG, myocardial infarction within seven days, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, age >70 years, or an intra-aortic balloon being required to stabilize) were identified. A total of 781 were acceptable for CABG and PCI, and 454 consented to be randomized. The 1,650 patients not acceptable for both CABG and PCI constitute the physician-directed registry, and the 327 who were acceptable but refused to be randomized constitute the patient-choice registry. Diabetes prevalence was 32% (144) among randomized patients, 27% (89) in the patient-choice registry, and 32% (525) in the physician-directed registry. The CABG and PCI survival rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: The respective CABG and PCI 36-month survival rates for diabetic patients were 72% and 81% for randomized patients, 85% and 89% for patient-choice registry patients, and 73% and 71% for the physician-directed registry patients. None of the differences was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PCI is a relatively safe alternative to CABG for diabetic patients with medically refractory unstable angina who are at high risk for CABG.     

Health-related quality of life after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in high-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia

OBJECTIVES: We compared six-month health-related quality of life (HRQL) for high-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. BACKGROUND: Mortality rates after PCI and CABG surgery are similar. Therefore, differences in HRQL outcomes may help in the selection of a revascularization procedure. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a Veterans Affairs multicenter randomized trial comparing PCI versus CABG for patients with medically refractory ischemia and one or more risk factors for adverse outcome; 389 of 423 patients (92%) alive six months after randomization completed an Short Form-36 (SF-36) health status survey. Primary outcomes were the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores from the SF-36. Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate whether PCI or CABG surgery was associated with better PCS or MCS scores after adjusting for over 20 baseline variables. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in either PCS scores (38.7 vs. 37.3 for PCI and CABG, respectively; p = 0.23) or MCS scores (45.5 vs. 46.1, p = 0.58) between the treatment arms. In multivariable models, there remained no difference in HRQL for post-PCI versus post-CABG patients (for PCS, absolute difference = 0.56 +/- standard error of 1.14, p = 0.63; for MCS, absolute difference = -1.23 +/- 1.12, p = 0.27). We had 97% power to detect a four-point difference in scores, where four to seven points is a clinically important difference. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia randomized to PCI versus CABG surgery have equivalent six-month HRQL. Therefore, HRQL concerns should not drive decision-making regarding selection of a revascularization procedure for these patients.     

Coronary angioplasty for medically refractory unstable angina in patients with prior coronary bypass surgery

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) has been applied with good results to selected patients with unstable angina and to selected patients who have had prior bypass surgery. The population with prior bypass and unstable angina has not been specifically evaluated. This report reviews the results of angioplasty of 45 vessels in 34 patients with medically refractory unstable angina and at least one prior bypass heart surgery. Of these 34 patients, 32 had rest angina; 14 had resting electrocardiographic changes, all 34 were on aspirin 325 mg QD, 31 were on a calcium blocker, 22 were on a beta blocker, 9 were on intravenous nitroglycerin, and 5 required intraaortic balloon counterpulsation for temporary stabilization. Angioplasty of a vein graft was attempted in 17 patients; the left internal mammary was attempted in 4 patients; 24 native coronary arteries in 15 patients were attempted; 3 of the native arteries were protected left main arteries. Of the LIMA angioplasties, 3 were successful; in the 1 unsuccessful case, the occluded anterior descending artery was opened. Of the 17 vein grafts, 16 were successful: 1 had an acute occlusive syndrome and went to surgery with a balloon pump and bail out catheter; his recovery was uneventful. Of the 24 native artery angioplasties, 22 were successful: one patient was technically unsuccessful in the only vessel attempted; he went to semiemergent surgery and recovered uneventfully. In the other, a right coronary lesion was successfully dilated, but an occluded anterior descending artery was not opened. There were no deaths or in-hospital myocardial infarctions.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients

Revascularization with CABG or angioplasty in diabetic patients is associated with a less favor-able outcome. The value of early intervention will be assessed in the ongoing BARI 2D trial. It remains to be determined whether the widespread use of GP IIb/IIIa drugs and prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy in diabetic patients who receive stents, and possibly drug-eluting stents, will alter results significantly so that outcomes become comparable or even better than CABG (Fig. 3). It seems prudent to consider CABG with LIMA grafting in diabetic patients who have severe multi-vessel disease and to consider angioplasty in selected patients who have more discrete and less severe disease.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting as primary revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome

New European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology guidelines classify patients with acute coronary syndrome and increased cardiac troponins as non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) who would have been classified as unstable angina pectoris (UAP) using the older World Health Organization (WHO) definition. The optimal revascularization strategy in these patients is poorly defined. This prospective cohort study included 1,024 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome classified as UAP, NSTEMI according to the WHO definition (WHO NSTEMI), and NSTEMI additionally identified by the novel European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology definition (additional NSTEMI). All patients underwent coronary angiography within 24 hours and were treated with immediate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or early coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The primary end point was all-cause mortality during follow-up of 36 months. Patients with additional NSTEMI showed excessive cumulative 3-year mortality if undergoing CABG (hazard ratio 5.9, 95% confidence interval 2.7 to 13.1, p <0.001). In patients with UAP or WHO NSTEMI, mortality was similar in the CABG and PCI groups. In conclusion, in the absence of randomized trials specifically including patients with additional NSTEMI, the excessive mortality observed with CABG in this cohort study suggested that PCI may be the preferable revascularization strategy in this subgroup.     

Predictors of revascularization method and long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention or repeat coronary bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary disease and previous coronary bypass surgery.

AIMS: The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated all patients with previous CABG undergoing isolated, non-emergency multivessel revascularization between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2000. The analysis concentrated on the independent predictors of the revascularization method, as well as on long-term mortality and its predictors, after calculating a propensity score for the method of revascularization. There were 2191 patients (1487 with reoperation and 704 with percutaneous coronary intervention, PCI) in the study. The most important factors in choosing reoperation were presence of more diseased or occluded grafts, previous infarction, lower ejection fraction (EF), longer interval from first CABG, and more total occlusions of native arteries, as well as absence of a patent mammary graft. The distribution of the propensity score was skewed towards the two extremes. At 5 years, the unadjusted cumulative survival was 79.5% for CABG and 75.3% for PCI, P=0.008. After adjustment for the propensity score for PCI vs. CABG, PCI was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.47 (0.94-2.28), P=0.09. The most powerful predictors of mortality were higher age and lower EF. CONCLUSION: The choice of the revascularization method in patients with previous CABG is dictated mostly by anatomical considerations and less by clinical characteristics. In contrast, clinical characteristics predominantly affect long-term outcome, whereas the method of revascularization has a limited effect. A randomized clinical trial addressing this important segment of the population with ischaemic heart disease is warranted.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting: clinical outcomes in multivessel coronary artery disease

Revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is superior to medical management in reducing symptoms and prolonging exercise duration in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Ten randomized trials have compared the outcomes in percutaneous and surgically treated patients with multivessel CAD. The purpose of this article was to summarize the results of those trials to make recommendations regarding appropriate revascularization strategy.