Contemporary Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting vs Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Abstract

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.