Prognostic superiority of coronary artery bypass grafting to percutaneous coronary intervention in non-diabetic patients with anatomically complex multivessel coronary artery disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sakata K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5509921 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prognostic superiority of coronary artery bypass grafting to percutaneous coronary intervention in non-diabetic patients with anatomically complex multivessel coronary artery disease.
Sakata Kenji K Nakahashi Takuya T Kawashiri Masa-Aki MA
Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy 20170601 Suppl 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundInterpretation of recent alterations to the guideline priority of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel disease contests historical data and practice. To reevaluate contemporary outcomes, a large contemporary analysis was conducted comparing CABG with multivessel PCI among Medicare beneficiaries.MethodsThe United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database was evaluated all beneficiaries with acute coronary syndrome undergoing isolated CABG or multivessel PCI (2018-2020). Risk adjustment was performed using multilevel regression analysis, Cox proportional hazards time to event models, and inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity scores.ResultsA total of 104,127 beneficiaries were identified undergoing CABG (n = 51,389) or multivessel PCI (n = 52,738). Before risk adjustment, compared with PCI, CABG patients were associated with younger age (72.9 vs 75.2 years, P < .001), higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (5.0 vs 4.2, P < .001), more diabetes (48.5% vs 42.2%, P < .001), higher cost ($54,154 vs $33,484, P < .001), and longer length of stay (11.9 vs 5.8 days, P < .001). After inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score adjustment, compared with PCI, CABG was associated with lower hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.74; P < .001), fewer hospital readmissions at 3 years (odds ratio, 0.85; P < .001), fewer coronary reinterventions (hazard ratio, 0.37; P < .001), and improved 3-year survival (hazard ratio, 0.51; P < .001).ConclusionsContemporary real-world data from Medicare patients with multivessel disease reveal that CABG outcomes were superior to PCI, providing important longitudinal data to guide patient care and policy development.
| S-EPMC10739562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thirty to sixty percent of patients with ESRD on dialysis have coronary heart disease, but the optimal strategy for coronary revascularization is unknown. We used data from the United States Renal Data System to define a cohort of 21,981 patients on maintenance dialysis who received initial coronary revascularization with either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 1997 and 2009 and had at least 6 months of prior Medicare coverage as their primary payer. The primary outcome was death from any cause, and the secondary outcome was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. Overall survival rates were consistently poor during the study period, with unadjusted 5-year survival rates of 22%-25% irrespective of revascularization strategy. Using multivariable-adjusted proportional hazards regression, we found that CABG compared with PCI associated with significantly lower risks for both death (HR=0.87, 95% CI=0.84-0.90) and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (HR=0.88, 95% CI=0.86-0.91). Results were similar in analyses using a propensity score-matched cohort. In the absence of data from randomized trials, these results suggest that CABG may be preferred over PCI for multivessel coronary revascularization in appropriately selected patients on maintenance dialysis.
| S-EPMC3507369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsData are emerging on 10-year mortality comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting for multivessel disease (MVD) without left main (LM) involvement. We conducted an updated two-stage meta-analysis using reconstructed individual patient data to compare long-term mortality between CABG and PCI for patients with MVD without significant LM coronary disease.MethodsMedline and Embase databases were searched for articles comparing CABG with PCI for MVD. A two-stage meta-analysis was conducted using reconstructed patient level survival data for all-cause mortality with subgroups by SYNTAX score. The shared-frailty and stratified Cox models were fitted to compare survival endpoints.ResultsWe screened 1,496 studies and included six randomized controlled trials with 7,181 patients. PCI was associated with greater 10-year all-cause mortality risk (HR: 1.282, CI: 1.118-1.469, p < 0.001) compared with CABG. In patients with low SYNTAX score, 10-year all-cause mortality after PCI was comparable to CABG (HR: 1.102, 0.822-1.479, p = 0.516). However, in patients with moderate to high SYNTAX score, 10-year all-cause mortality was significantly higher after PCI compared with CABG (HR: 1.444, 1.122-1.858, p < 0.001; HR: 1.856, 1.380-2.497, p < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionThis updated reconstructed individual patient-data meta-analysis revealed a sustained lower cumulative all-cause mortality of CABG over PCI for multivessel disease without LM involvement.
| S-EPMC8990308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess the prognosis of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) after first myocardial revascularisation procedure in real-world practice and to compare the differences in outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among diabetic and non-diabetic patients. A database was compiled from the national hospital discharge register to collect data on all cardiac revascularisations performed in Finland in 2000-2015. The outcomes (all-cause deaths, cardiovascular (CV) deaths, major CV events and need for repeat revascularisation) after the first revascularisation were identified from the national registers at 28 day, 1 year, and 3 year time points.A total of 139 242 first-time revascularisations (89 493 PCI and 49 749 CABG) were performed during the study period. Of all the revascularised patients, 24% had diabetes, and 76% were non-diabetic patients. At day 28, the risk of fatal outcomes was lower after PCI than after CABG among non-diabetic patients, whereas no difference was seen among diabetic patients. In long-term follow-up the situation was reversed with PCI showing higher risk compared with CABG for most of the outcomes. In particular, at 3 year follow-up the risk of all-cause deaths was elevated among diabetic patients [HR 1.30 (95% CI 1.22-1.38) comparing PCI with CABG] more than among non-diabetic patients [HR 1.09 (1.04-1.15)]. The same was true for CV deaths [HR 1.29 (1.20-1.38) among diabetic patients, and HR 1.03 (0.98-1.08) among non-diabetic patients]. Although PCI was associated with better 28 day prognosis, CABG seemed to produce better long-term prognosis especially among diabetic patients.
| S-EPMC10027652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mechanisms of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) differ as CABG provides surgical collateralization and may prolong life by preventing future myocardial infarctions (MI). However, CABG benefits are unclear in octogenarians, where surgical risk is often perceived as higher and PCI is chosen more liberally. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes in octogenarians with left main or multivessel disease who underwent CABG or PCI. Primary outcome was late mortality (> 5 years). Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality, MI, re-revascularization (R-R), acute renal failure (ARF), and stroke. Fourteen studies with 17,942 patients were included. CABG was associated with lower late mortality (hazard ratio, HR: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: CI 1.05-1.44, p < 0.01). In the pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis CABG showed significantly lower risk of death in the follow-up compared to PCI (HR: 1.08, 95%CI 1.02-1.41, p = 0.005). Landmark analyses confirmed the survival advantage of CABG over PCI after 21.5 months of follow-up (HR: 1.31, 1.19-1.44, p < 0.0001), but suggested advantage of PCI over CABG in the first 30-days (HR: 0.72, 0.64-0.82, p < 0.0001) and comparable survival from 1 to 21.5 months (HR: 0.98, 0.92-1.05, p = 0.652). We found lower risk for MI and R-R after CABG but higher perioperative mortality and no differences in ARF and stroke. CABG appears superior to PCI over time in octogenarians with complex CAD. This survival advantage is associated with fewer events of MI and R-R; however, it comes with an increased risk in perioperative mortality.
| S-EPMC10724226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and multivessel coronary artery disease.Methods1213 patients were selected from institutional databases, 761 and 452 in CABG and PCI group respectively. Only the subjects with left ventricle ejection fraction ≤ 35% and multivessel coronary artery disease were included to the study. The primary outcome measure was long-term all-cause death, the secondary outcomes were recurrent myocardial infarction, urgent repeat revascularization and stroke. Propensity Score-Based Adjusted Survival Curves were used for revascularization methods comparison.ResultsSurvival rates were similar in both groups (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.28; p=0.59). Recurrent myocardial infarction was observed significantly less often in the CABG group (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.74; p=0.002). Repeat urgent revascularization was less frequent in the CABG group (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30-0.84; p=0.008). The rate of stroke did not differ between the groups (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.62-2.22; p=0.62).ConclusionsIn patients with HFrEF and multivessel CAD revascularization both with CABG and PCI resulted in similar survival rates. PCI is associated with increased risk of recurrent MI and urgent repeat revascularization, whereas the risk of stroke is similar in both methods.
| S-EPMC5940397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDifferences in quality of life (QoL) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well characterized. We aimed to compare the short- and long-term effects of CABG versus PCI on QoL.Methods and resultsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing CABG versus PCI using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ)-Angina Frequency, SAQ-QoL, SAQ-Physical Limitations, EuroQoL-5D, and Short-Form Questionnaire. We calculated mean changes within each group from baseline to 1, 6, 12, and 36 to 60 months (latest follow-up) and the weighted mean differences between groups using inverse-variance methods. A total of 10 760 patients were enrolled in 5 trials. From baseline to 12 months and 36 to 60 months, the mean change in SAQ-Angina Frequency was >22 points (95% CI, 21.0-25.6) after both PCI and CABG. The mean difference in SAQ-Angina Frequency was similar between procedures at 1 month and at 36 to 60 months but favored CABG at 12 months (1.97 [95% CI, 0.68-3.26]). SAQ-QoL favored PCI at 1 month (-2.92 [95% CI, -4.66 to -1.18]) and CABG at 6 (2.50 [95% CI, 1.02-3.97]), 12 (3.30 [95% CI, 1.78-4.82]), and 36 to 60 months (3.17 [95% CI, 0.54 5.80). SAQ-Physical Limitations (-12.61 [95% CI, -16.16 to -9.06]) and EuroQoL-5D (-0.07 [95% CI, -0.08 to -0.07) favored PCI at 1 month. Short-Form Questionnaire-Physical Component favored CABG at 12 months (1.18 [95% CI, 0.46-1.90]).ConclusionsBoth PCI and CABG improved long-term disease-specific and generic QoL.
| S-EPMC10727273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The target of this study was to explore the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. METHODS:Seven hundred and twenty four patients who had previously received CABG and had been treated using PCI combined with drug-eluting stents (DES) between 2009 and 2017 were selected for a retrospective study and allocated into either a diabetes mellitus (DM) or non-diabetes mellitus (No DM) group. A 1:1 propensity score-matched evaluation was conducted and risk adjusted for analysis. The primary outcomes were cardiac death, myocardial infarction, heart failure and revascularization, with a median follow-up duration of 5.13 years. RESULTS:After matching, two-, 5- and 8-year event rate of overall major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were found to be higher in the DM group (No DM vs DM:15.3, 30.9, 38.5% vs 19.8, 37.8, 52.2%, respectively), although no significant difference was found in the event rate of overall MACEs (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.83 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.052), cardiac death (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.95; P = 0.871), MI (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.32; P = 0.080), HF (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.90 to 2.63 for; P = 0.120) or revascularization (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.59; P = 0.747). Subgroup analysis of PCI in only the NCA showed MACEs (adjusted HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.49 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.325), cardiac death (adjusted HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.78 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.781), MI (adjusted HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.84 to 2.01 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.069), HF (adjusted HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.87 to 2.27 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.211) or repeated revascularization (adjusted HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.37 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.836). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with non-diabetic patients with prior CABG, subsequent implantation of DES in the native coronary artery of diabetic patients resulted in apparently similar outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was not registered in an open access database.
| S-EPMC7137249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShort-term and long-term comparative outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery (MVCA) or left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease are highly debated.GoalsWe performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the difference between PCI and CABG for the treatment of patients with MVCA or LMCA in long-term follow-up.MethodsLiteratures were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2021, including RCTs and observational studies (OSs). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 10 years follow-up, and the secondary outcomes included cardiac mortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, and stroke.ResultsA total of 5 RCTs reporting data from 3013 participants and 4 OSs of 5608 participants were included for analysis. There was no significant difference between PCI and CABG in all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.19]), whereas PCI was associated with higher cardiac mortality (OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.90]) and repeated revascularization rate comparing to CABG (OR 1.77 [95% CI 1.08 to 2.89]; I2 = 94.61%). The difference between PCI and CABG in repeated revascularization in either RCTs or OSs, in myocardial infarction in either RCTs or OSs were not significant. In OSs, stroke rate in PCI group was lower than those in CABG, but not in RCTs. There was a significant increase of stroke rate in CABG comparing to PCI (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.80]; I2 = 0.00%). No significant difference between PCI and CABG in myocardial infarction was not observed (OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.64 to 1.31]; I2 = 57.84%).ConclusionEvidence from our study and prior studies suggested the superiority of CABG over PCI in improving 5- but not 10-year survival among patients with MVCA. In the contrast, there was no significant difference between CABG and PCI for treating patients with LMCA in either 5- or 10-year survival rate. More long-term trials are needed to better define differences of outcome between 2 techniques.
| S-EPMC9893531 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Owing to a large-jeopardized myocardium, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) represents the substantial high-risk anatomical subset of obstructive coronary artery disease. For several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the "gold standard" treatment for LMCAD. Along with advances in CABG, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has also dramatically evolved over time in conjunction with advances in the stent or device technology, adjunct pharmacotherapy, accumulated experiences, and practice changes, establishing its position as a safe, reasonable treatment option for such a complex disease. Until recently, several randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational registries comparing PCI and CABG for LMCAD have shown comparable long-term survival with tradeoffs between early and late risk-benefit of each treatment. Despite this, there are still several unmet issues for revascularization strategy and management for LMCAD. This review article summarized updated knowledge on evolution and clinical evidence on the treatment of LMCAD, with a focus on the comparison of state-of-the-art PCI with CABG.
| S-EPMC10011221 | biostudies-literature