Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Complex Coronary Artery Disease: Long-term Clinical Outcomes from a High-volume Center.

Abstract

Clinical equipoise between a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) in the treatment of complex coronary artery disease (CAD), including unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) and/or three-vessel disease (3VD), remains debatable. A retrospective analysis of an unselected cohort undergoing contemporary PCI versus CABG at a large center in 2015. Patients who received nonemergent treatment of unprotected LMCA and/or 3VD were included. The primary study endpoint was all-cause mortality at 5 years. Secondary endpoints included a composite of all-cause mortality, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven repeat revascularization at 30 days and 1 year. Four hundred and thirty patients met the inclusion criteria, 225 had PCI, and 205 had CABG. PCI patients were older with frequent LMCA involvement and higher EuroSCORE yet they had a fourfold shorter in-hospital stay compared to CABG patients. At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between CABG and PCI (adjusted Hazard ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-1.22, P = 0.19). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the incidence of the secondary composite endpoint or its components at 30 days or 1 year. A propensity score-matched analysis in 220 patients revealed similar outcomes. In real-world long-term contemporary data, survival after PCI was comparable to CABG at 5 years in patients with unprotected LMCA and/or 3VD. At 1 year, the incidence of spontaneous MI and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization did not differ between the two cohorts. The mode of revascularization in these complex patients should be guided by the heart team.