Dataset Information

CABG Versus PCI: Greater Benefit in Long-Term Outcomes With Multiple Arterial Bypass Grafting.

ABSTRACT: Treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with traditional single-arterial coronary artery bypass graft (SA-CABG) has been associated with superior intermediate-term survival and reintervention compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using either bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES).This study sought to investigate longer-term outcomes including the potential added advantage of multiarterial coronary artery bypass graft (MA-CABG).We studied 8,402 single-institution, primary revascularization, multivessel coronary artery disease patients: 2,207 BMS-PCI (age 66.6 ± 11.9 years); 2,381 DES-PCI (age 65.9 ± 11.7 years); 2,289 SA-CABG (age 69.3 ± 9.0 years); and 1,525 MA-CABG (age 58.3 ± 8.7 years). Patients with myocardial infarction within 24 h, shock, or left main stents were excluded. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to separately compare 9-year all-cause mortality and unplanned reintervention for BMS-PCI and DES-PCI to respective propensity-matched SA-CABG and MA-CABG cohorts.BMS-PCI was associated with worse survival than SA-CABG, especially from 0 to 7 years (p = 0.015) and to a greater extent than MA-CABG was (9-year follow-up: 76.3% vs. 86.9%; p < 0.001). The surgery-to-BMS-PCI hazard ratios (HR) were as follows: versus SA-CABG, HR: 0.87; and versus MA-CABG, HR: 0.38. DES-PCI showed similar survival to SA-CABG except for a modest 0 to 3 years surgery advantage (HR: 1.06; p = 0.615). Compared with MA-CABG, DES-PCI exhibited worse survival at 5 (86.3% vs. 95.6%) and 9 (82.8% vs. 89.8%) years (HR: 0.45; p <0.001). Reintervention was substantially worse with PCI for all comparisons (all p <0.001).Multiarterial surgical revascularization, compared with either BMS-PCI or DES-PCI, resulted in substantially enhanced death and reintervention-free survival. Accordingly, MA-CABG represents the optimal therapy for multivessel coronary artery disease and should be enthusiastically adopted by multidisciplinary heart teams as the best evidence-based therapy.

SUBMITTER: Habib RH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5473156 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

CABG Versus PCI: Greater Benefit in Long-Term Outcomes With Multiple Arterial Bypass Grafting.

Habib Robert H RH Dimitrova Kamellia R KR Badour Sanaa A SA Yammine Maroun B MB El-Hage-Sleiman Abdul-Karim M AK Hoffman Darryl M DM Geller Charles M CM Schwann Thomas A TA Tranbaugh Robert F RF

Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20150901 13

<h4>Background</h4>Treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with traditional single-arterial coronary artery bypass graft (SA-CABG) has been associated with superior intermediate-term survival and reintervention compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using either bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES).<h4>Objectives</h4>This study sought to investigate longer-term outcomes including the potential added advantage of multiarterial coronary artery bypass graft ...[more]

PMID: 26403338

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCoronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has traditionally represented the standard of care for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. However, percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation (PCI) has more recently emerged as a valuable alternative. The long-time awaited results of the largest randomized trials on the long-term impact of PCI versus CABG in LMCA disease, the newly published NOBLE and EXCEL studies, revealed contrasting results. Thus, aim of the present meta-analysis was to review the most robust evidence from randomized comparisons of CABG versus PCI for revascularization of LMCA.MethodsRandomized studies comparing long-term clinical outcomes of CABG or Stent-PCI for the treatment of LMCA disease were searched for in PubMed, the Chochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 5 randomized studies were selected, including 4499 patients.ResultsNo significant difference between CABG and PCI was found in the primary analysis on the composite endpoint of death, stroke and myocardial infarction (OR = 1·06 95% CI 0·80-1·40; p = 0·70). Similarly, no differences were observed between CABG and PCI for all-cause death (OR = 1·03 95% CI 0·81-1·32; p = 0·81). Although not statistically significant, a lower rate of stroke was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 0·86; p = 0·67), while a lower rate of myocardial infarction was found in the CABG arm (OR = 1·43; p = 0·17). On the contrary, a significantly higher rate of repeat revascularization was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 1·76 95% CI 1·45-2·13; p < 0·001).ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis, the most comprehensive and updated to date, including 5 randomized studies and 4499 patients, demonstrates no difference between Stent-PCI and CABG for the treatment of LMCA disease in the composite endpoint of death, stroke and myocardial infarction. Hence, a large part of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease can be managed equally well by means of both these revascularization strategies.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough the long-term survival advantage of multiple arterial grafting (MAG) vs the standard use of left internal thoracic artery (LITA) supplemented by saphenous vein grafts (LITA+SVG) has been demonstrated in several observational studies, to our knowledge its safety and other long-term clinical benefits in a large, population-based cohort are unknown.ObjectiveTo compare the safety and long-term outcomes of MAG vs LITA+SVG among overall and selected subgroups of patients.Design, setting, and participantsIn this population-based observational study, we included 20?076 adult patients with triple-vessel or left-main disease who underwent primary isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (MAG, n?=?5580; LITA+SVG, n?=?14?496) in the province of British Columbia, Canada, from January 2000 to December 2014, with follow-up to December 2015. We performed propensity-score analyses by weighting and matching and multivariable Cox regression to minimize treatment selection bias.ExposuresMultiple arterial grafting or LITA+SVG.Main outcomes and measuresMortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke.ResultsOf 5580 participants who underwent MAG, 586 (11%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 60 (8.7) years. Of 14?496 participants who underwent LITA+SVG, 2803 (19%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 68 (8.9) years. The median (interquartile range) follow-up time was 9.1 (5.1-12.6) years and 8.1 (4.5-11.7) years for the groups receiving MAG and LITA+SVG, respectively. Compared with LITA+SVG, MAG was associated with reduced mortality rates (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87) and repeated revascularization rates (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84) in 15-year follow-up and reduced incidences of myocardial infarction (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85) and heart failure (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) in 7-year follow-up. The long-term benefits were coherent by all 3 statistical methods and persisted among patient subgroups with diabetes, obesity, moderately impaired ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, or renal disease. Multiple arterial grafting was not associated with increased morbidity or mortality rates at 30 days overall or within patient subgroups.Conclusions and relevanceCompared with LITA+SVG, MAG is associated with reduced mortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, and heart failure among patients with multivessel disease who are undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting without increased mortality or other adverse events at 30 days. The long-term benefits consistently observed across multiple outcomes and subgroups support the consideration of MAG for a broader spectrum of patients who are undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting in routine practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Several risk scores have been created to predict long term mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Several studies demonstrated a reduction in long-term mortality following bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) compared to single internal thoracic artery. However, these prediction models usually referred to long term survival as survival of up to 5 years. Moreover, none of these models were built specifically for operation incorporating BITA grafting. METHODS:A historical cohort study of all patients who underwent isolated BITA grafting between 1996 and 2011 at Tel-Aviv Sourasky medical center, a tertiary referral university affiliated medical center with a 24-bed cardio-thoracic surgery department. Study population (N = 2,935) was randomly divided into 2 groups: learning group which was used to build the prediction model and validation group. Cox regression was used to predict death using pre-procedural risk factors (demographic data, patient comorbidities, cardiac characteristics and patient's status). The accuracy (discrimination and calibration) of the prediction model was evaluated. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The learning (1,468 patients) and validation (1,467 patients) groups had similar preoperative characteristics and similar survival. Older age, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive lung disease, congestive heart failure, chronic renal failure, old MI, ejection fraction ?30%, pre-operative use of intra-aortic balloon, and peripheral vascular disease, were significant predictors of mortality and were used to build the prediction model. The area under the ROC curves for 5, 10, and 15-year survival ranged between 0.742 and 0.762 for the learning group and between 0.766 and 0.770 for the validation group. The prediction model showed good calibration performance in both groups. A nomogram was built in order to introduce a simple-to-use tool for prediction of 5, 10, and 15-year survival. CONCLUSIONS:A simple-to-use validated model can be used for a prediction of 5, 10, and 15-year mortality after CABG using the BITA grafting technique.

Project description:Sex-related differences in the outcome of using multiple arterial grafts during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain uncertain. To compare the outcomes of the use of multiple arterial grafts vs a single arterial graft during CABG for women and men. This statewide cohort study used data from New York's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System and New York's Vital Statistics file on 63 402 patients undergoing CABG from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2014. Statistical analysis was performed from January 10 to August 20, 2020. Multiple arterial grafting or single arterial grafting. Mortality, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, repeated revascularization, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (composite of mortality, AMI, and stroke), and major adverse cardiac event (composite of mortality, AMI, or repeated revascularization) were compared among propensity-matched patients and stratified by the risk of long-term mortality. Of the 63 402 patients (48 155 men [76.0%]; mean [SD] age, 69.9 [10.5] years) in the study, women had worse baseline characteristics than men for most of the explored variables. Propensity matching yielded a total of 9512 male pairs and 1860 female pairs. At 7 years of follow-up, mortality was lower among men who underwent multiple arterial grafting (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87) but not women who underwent multiple arterial grafting (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.15). When stratified by the estimated risk of death, the use of multiple arterial grafts was associated with better survival and a lower rate of a major adverse cardiac event among low-risk, but not high-risk, patients of both sexes, and the risk cutoff was different for men and women. This study suggests that women have a worse preoperative risk profile than men. Multiple arterial grafting is associated with better outcomes among low-risk, but not high-risk, patients, and the risk cutoffs differ between sexes. These data highlight the need for new studies on the outcome of multiple arterial grafts in women.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral of the most extensively used risk prediction tools for coronary artery bypass grafting outcomes include female sex as an independent risk factor for postoperative outcomes. It is not clear whether this putative increased surgical risk impacts long-term survival. This study aimed to assess sex differences in 10-year all-cause mortality.MethodsRetrospective analysis of 5340 consecutive patients undergoing primary isolated coronary artery bypass surgery, performed from 2000 to 2015, in a Portuguese level III Hospital. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at ten years. We employed an overlap weighting algorithm to minimize confounding. Its target population highlights patients with the most overlap in their observed characteristics, and its corresponding estimand is the average treatment effect in the overlap population.ResultsWe identified that 5340 patients underwent isolated CABG: 1104 (20.7%) were female, and 4236 (79.3%) were male. Sixteen patients were lost to follow-up (0.3%). The median follow-up time was 12.79 (IQR, 9.52-16.66) years: 12.68 (IQR, 9.48-16.54) years for the male patient group and 13.13 (IQR, 9.75-16.98) years for the female patient group. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality at ten years occurred in 1106 patients (26.1%) in the male patient group, compared with 315 (28.5%) in the female patient group. The unweighted survival analysis for both groups reveals the worst long-term prognosis for the female cohort (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.35; p < 0.001), while in the overlap weighted survival analysis, such long-term difference in prognosis disappears (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; p = 0.693).ConclusionIn this longitudinal, population-level analysis of patients undergoing primary, isolated CABG, we demonstrated that the female sex is not associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality compared to their male counterparts. Thus, sex should not influence the undertaking of an adequate revascularization strategy.

Dataset Information

CABG Versus PCI: Greater Benefit in Long-Term Outcomes With Multiple Arterial Bypass Grafting.

Publications

CABG Versus PCI: Greater Benefit in Long-Term Outcomes With Multiple Arterial Bypass Grafting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets