Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Research Articles

Staged Versus Concomitant TAVI and PCI for the Treatment of Coexisting Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular pathologies. Severe coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexists with AS. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been established as alternatives to open surgical interventions. The data on the timing for the treatment of the 2 conditions are scarce and depend on multiple factors. This review compares the clinical outcomes of the concomitant versus staged PCI and TAVI for the treatment of AS and CAD. A systematic, electronic search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to identify relevant articles that compared outcomes of the staged versus concomitant approaches for the TAVI and PCI. Seven studies were included involving 3745 patients. We found no statistically significant difference in primary outcomes such as 30-day mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-1.57] and secondary outcomes including length of hospital stay (mean difference = -4.74, 95% CI: -10.96 to 1.48), new-onset renal failure (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.22-3.13), cerebrovascular accidents (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.64-2.57), and intraoperative blood loss (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.32-2.12). New pacemaker insertion was statistically significant in favor of the concomitant approach (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96). This analysis suggests that while the 2 approaches are largely comparable in terms of most outcomes, patients at risk of requiring a pacemaker postprocedure may benefit from a concomitant approach. In conclusion, concomitant TAVI + PCI approach is nonsuperior to the staged approach for the treatment of CAD and AS. This review calls for robust trials in the field to further strengthen the evidence.

OR4-2 | Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass for Left Anterior Descending Artery Chronic Total Occlusion

OR4-2 | Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass for Left Anterior Descending Artery Chronic Total Occlusion

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Disease With and Without Diabetes: Findings From a Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Diabetes may be associated with differential outcomes in patients undergoing left main coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes in patients with left main disease with and without diabetes randomized to PCI versus CABG. Individual patient data were pooled from 4 trials (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery], PRECOMBAT [Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease], NOBLE [Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularisation Study], and EXCEL [Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization]) that randomized patients with left main disease to PCI or CABG. Patients were considered suitable for either approach. Patients were categorized by diabetes status. Kaplan-Meier event rates, Cox model hazard ratios, and interactions were assessed. Among 4393 patients, 1104 (25.1%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes experienced higher rates of 5-year death (158/1104 [Kaplan-Meier rate, 14.7%] versus 297/3289 [9.3%]; P<0.001), spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI; 67/1104 [6.7%] versus 114/3289 [3.7%]; P<0.001), and repeat revascularization (189/1104 [18.5%] versus 410/3289 [13.2%]; P<0.001). Rates of all-cause mortality did not differ after PCI versus CABG in those with (84/563 [15.3%] versus 74/541 [14.1%]; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.82-1.52]) or without (155/1634 [9.7%] versus 142/1655 [8.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.86-1.36; PintHR=0.87) diabetes. Rates of stroke within 1 year were lower with PCI versus CABG in the entire population, with no heterogeneity based on diabetes status (PintHR=0.51). The 5-year rates of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization were higher after PCI regardless of diabetes status (spontaneous MI: 45/563 [8.9%] versus 22/541 [4.4%] in diabetes and 82/1634 [5.3%] versus 32/1655 [2.1%] in no diabetes, PintHR=0.47; repeat revascularization: 127/563 [24.5%] versus 62/541 [12.4%] in diabetes and 254/1634 [16.3%] versus 156/1655 [10.1%] in no diabetes, PintHR=0.18). For spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization, there were greater absolute risk differences beyond 1 year in patients with diabetes (4.9% and 9.9%) compared with those without (2.1% and 4.3%; PintARD=0.047 and 0.016). In patients with left main disease considered equally suitable for PCI or CABG and with largely low to intermediate SYNTAX scores, diabetes was associated with higher rates of death and cardiovascular events through 5 years. Compared with CABG, PCI resulted in no difference in the risk of death and a lower risk of early stroke regardless of diabetes status, and a higher risk of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization, with larger late absolute excess risks in patients with diabetes. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01205776, NCT0146651, NCT00422968, and NCT00114972.

Evaluate the Quality of Life in Patients With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft.

Introduction Globally, coronary heart disease is the most imperative cause of premature death. However, timely management with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) can improve the quality of life (QoL) and reduce mortality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the QoL between the patients who received PCI and CABGfor the treatment of coronary heart disease. Materials and methods This was a retrospective observational study. Patients who underwent PCI or CABG at least three months before or more at enrollment were purposefully selected. Results A total of 156 patients were enrolled, 78 in each group. Health-related QoL was assessed by using the SF-36 scale for PCI or CABG procedures. The mean ± SD scores of QoL for PCI and CABG were 78.95 ±10.14 and 78.17 ± 10.92, respectively. Of the patients, 72.43% felt better after treatment, 17.95% felt the same as before treatment, and 9.62% felt worse than before treatment in both groups. Among CABG patients, 38.46% felt significantly better after treatment compared to PCI (33.97%) (p=0.048). Moreover, more CABG patients (6.41%) felt significantly worse than PCI patients (3.21%) after treatment (p=0.048). Male patients were significantly more in the CABG group (89.74%) compared to the PCI group (75.64%). In contrast, female patients had more PCI (24.36%) compared to CABG patients (10.26%) (p=0.020). Conclusion Subjective perceptions of physical and mental well-being improved significantly from before treatment to at least three months after treatment, and an enhanced health-related QoL was noticed for medical intervention (PCI) and surgical approach (CABG).

Quality of Life After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Differences 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. We 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]). Both PCI and CABG improved long-term disease-specific and generic QoL.

TCT-696 Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

TCT-696 Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on 10-Year Mortality Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on 10-Year Mortality Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

B-3 | Cardiovascular Outcomes of Redo-Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Index Bypass Grafts Among Acute Coronary Syndrome: Regression Matched National Cohort Study

B-3 | Cardiovascular Outcomes of Redo-Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Index Bypass Grafts Among Acute Coronary Syndrome: Regression Matched National Cohort Study

B-4 | Cardiovascular Outcomes of Redo-Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Index Bypass Grafts Among Non ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) Patients: Regression Matched National Cohort Study of United States

B-4 | Cardiovascular Outcomes of Redo-Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Index Bypass Grafts Among Non ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) Patients: Regression Matched National Cohort Study of United States

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Non–ST-Elevation Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There is lack of evidence regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with that of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in this subset of patients. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge were searched for studies including patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD who underwent PCI or CABG up to September 1, 2021. The primary end point of the meta-analysis was all-cause mortality at 1year. The secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1year. The analysis was conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Four prospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,542 patients who underwent CABG and 1,630 patients who underwent PCI. No significant differences were found in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, p=0.51), MI (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.51, p=0.46), or stroke (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.35, p=0.42) between PCI and CABG. Repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the CABG group (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p <0.00001). In patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD, 1-year mortality, MI, and stroke were similar between patients treated with either PCI or CABG, but the repeat revascularization rate was higher after PCI.

TCTAP A-039 On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on 10-Year Mortality Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

TCTAP A-039 On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on 10-Year Mortality Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

QFR-Based Virtual PCI or Conventional Angiography to Guide PCI: The AQVA Trial

BackgroundPost–percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) quantitative flow ratio (QFR) values ≥0.90 are associated with a low incidence of adverse events. ObjectivesThe AQVA (Angio-based Quantitative Flow Ratio Virtual PCI Versus Conventional Angio-guided PCI in the Achievement of an Optimal Post-PCI QFR) trial aims to test whether a QFR-based virtual percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to a conventional angiography-based PCI at obtaining optimal post-PCI QFR results. MethodsThe AQVA trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. A total of 300 patients (356 study vessels) undergoing PCI were randomized 1:1 to receive either QFR-based virtual PCI or angiography-based PCI (standard of care). The primary outcome was the rate of study vessels with a suboptimal post-PCI QFR value, which was defined as <0.90. Secondary outcomes were procedure duration, stent length/lesion, and stent number/patient. ResultsOverall, 38 (10.7%) study vessels missed the prespecified optimal post-PCI QFR target. The primary outcome occurred significantly more frequently in the angiography-based group (n = 26, 15.1%) compared with the QFR-based virtual PCI group (n = 12 [6.6%]; absolute difference = 8.5%; relative difference = 57%; P = 0.009). The main cause of a suboptimal result in the angiography-based group is the underestimation of a diseased segment outside the stented one. There were no significant differences among secondary endpoints, although stent length/lesion and stent number/patient were numerically lower in the virtual PCI group (P = 0.06 and P = 0.08, respectively), whereas procedure length was higher in the virtual PCI group (P = 0.06). ConclusionsThe AQVA trial demonstrated the superiority of QFR-based virtual PCI over angiography-based PCI with regard to post-PCI optimal physiological results. Future larger randomized clinical trials that demonstrate the superiority of this approach in terms of clinical outcomes are warranted. (Angio-based Quantitative Flow Ratio Virtual PCI Versus Conventional Angio-guided PCI in the Achievement of an Optimal Post-PCI QFR [AQVA]; NCT04664140)

Influence of Culprit Lesion Intervention on Outcomes in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock With Cardiac Arrest

BackgroundCardiac arrest (CA) is common in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock (CS). ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to identify the characteristics and outcomes of culprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of patients with infarct-related CS stratified according to CA in the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) randomized trial and registry. MethodsPatients with CS with and without CA from the CULPRIT-SHOCK study were analyzed. All-cause death or severe renal failure leading to renal replacement therapy within 30 days and 1-year death were assessed. ResultsAmong 1,015 patients, 550 (54.2%) had CA. Patients with CA were younger, more frequently male, had lower rates of peripheral artery disease, a glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min, and left main disease, and they presented more often with clinical signs of impaired organ perfusion. The composite of all-cause death or severe renal failure within 30 days occurred in 51.2% of patients with CA vs 48.5% in non-CA patients (P = 0.39) and 1-year death in 53.8% vs 50.4% (P = 0.29), respectively. In a multivariate analysis, CA was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality (HR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.01-1.59). In the randomized trial, culprit lesion–only PCI was superior to immediate multivessel PCI in patients both with and without CA (P for interaction = 0.6). ConclusionsMore than 50% of patients with infarct-related CS had CA. These patients with CA were younger and had fewer comorbidities, but CA was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality. Culprit lesion–only PCI is the preferred strategy, both in patients with and without CA. (Culprit Lesion Only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock [CULPRIT-SHOCK]; NCT01927549)

Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Isolated Left Anterior Descending Artery Stenosis: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

The optimal revascularization strategy for isolated left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery lesion between minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare the long- and short-term outcomes of MIDCAB versus PCI for patients with isolated LAD coronary artery lesions. The Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for retrieving potential publications from 2002 to 2022. The primary outcome was long-term survival. Secondary outcomes were long-term target vessel revascularization (TVR), long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and short-term outcomes, including postoperative mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), TVR, and MACEs of any cause in-hospital or 30 days after the revascularization. Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies were included in this updated meta-analysis. In total, 1757 patients underwent MIDCAB and 15245 patients underwent PCI. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in the rates of long-term survival. MIDCAB had a lower long-term MACE rate compared with PCI. Besides, PCI resulted in an augmented risk of TVR. Postoperative mortality, MI, TVR, and MACEs were similar between the two groups. The updated meta-analysis presents the evidence that MIDCAB has a reduced risk of long-term TVR and MACEs, with no benefit in terms of long-term mortality and short-term results, in comparison with PCI. Large multicenter RCTs, including patients treated with newer techniques, are warranted in the future.

Alternative Approaches to Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, How Do They Compare?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Severe symptomatic CAD is treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Alternative CABG (ACABG) approaches including thoracotomy, off-pump, total endoscopic, and robotic-assisted CABG are increasing in prevalence to address the increased early risk of CABG. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the contemporary literature comparing outcomes after ACABG and PCI. Pubmed, Medline, and Embase were systematically searched by 2 authors for articles comparing the outcomes after ACABG and PCI. A total of 1154 articles were screened, and 11 were included in this review. The RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis of the pooled data. Individual studies found rates of long-term survival, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization either favored ACABG or did not differ significantly. Pooled estimates of the compiled data identified rates of MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization favored ACABG. The results of this review demonstrated the favorable rates of long-term mortality, MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization for ACABG in addition to similar short-term mortality and stroke when compared with PCI. Advancement of both CABG and PCI continues to improve patient outcomes. With the increasing prevalence of ACABG, similar studies will need to be undertaken with further direct comparisons between ACABG and PCI. Finally, hybrid revascularization should continue to be explored for its combined benefits of long-term outcomes, short-term safety, and ability to achieve complete revascularization.

Delayed Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Conventional Medical Treatment for Management of Late Comers with Anterior ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Delayed Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Conventional Medical Treatment for Management of Late Comers with Anterior ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Revascularization of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

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.

Endovascular Treatment of an Elderly Diabetic Patient with a Circular Myocardial Infarction in Cardiogenic Shock Complicated by Stent Thrombosis

The most common cause of cardiogenic shock (CS) is acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which is diagnosed in approximately 5–8% of patients hospitalized for AMI and is more common in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). CS is caused by severe myocardial dysfunction, which leads to a decrease in cardiac output, hypoperfusion of the end organs, and hypoxia. Mortality in diabetic patients with AMI is high. Besides the fact that type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) contributes to the progression of coronary atherosclerosis, coronary pathology in this category of patients occurs against the background of a specific diabetic myocardial lesion – diabetic cardiomyopathy. Against the background of cardiomyopathy, acute heart failure is more often developed with a decrease in global myocardial contractility up to CS, which increases hospital-acquired mortality in MI by more than 15 times. The increased risk of death observed in patients with DM2 in the acute period of myocardial infarction (MI) persists for several years, and therefore, at present, in patients with the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and diabetes, an early invasive strategy is preferable to a conservative strategy. The SHOCK (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) trial demonstrated that in patients with CS complicating AMI, emergency revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improved long-term survival when compared with initial intensive medical therapy. However, in the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) study, stenting of non-infarct-dependent coronary arteries in CS increases the risks of major cardiac events, as well as the number of repeated revascularizations within 30 days and 1 year. Patients with multivessel lesions, in most cases, are elderly patients (75–90 years old) who have age restrictions on taking the loading dose at the prehospital stage. Such a loading dose of clopidogrel may not be sufficient to saturate the patient in fact, despite optimal epicardial recanalization, a large proportion of patients still experience impaired reperfusion and in-stent thrombosis. A large body of evidence has been accumulated on the benefits of glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa inhibitors in terms of prevention of stent thrombosis, and benefits in mortality, especially among high-risk patients, and as an upstream strategy.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Patients With Three Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Comparison of Centers in the Same Jurisdiction With Differing Multidisciplinary Heart Team Approaches.

Referral patterns and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were compared between 2 centers within 1 jurisdiction wherein only 1 center utilizes multidisciplinary review for all patients. Management of advanced coronary artery disease often involves PCI and CABG for improvements in quality of life and survival. Indications exist for PCI and CABG, with CABG demonstrating benefit in three-vessel disease (TVD). A total of 27,961 patients underwent cardiac catheterization in 2 centers within the same single-payer health jurisdiction (Center A and B) from 2017 to 2018. Rates of PCI, CABG, and outcomes of 1-year mortality, rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, and stroke were compared. More patients in Center A received PCI and less received CABG compared with Center B even among patients with TVD ( P <0.001). Multivariable logistic regression identified Center B as protective for mortality for TVD patients ( P <0.001) and those undergoing PCI ( P =0.004), but not CABG ( P =0.06). Center A's 1-year mortality was increased for all patients ( P =0.004) and those with TVD ( P =0.011). Discordant outcomes exist between these 2 centers. While patients in Center A were more likely to undergo PCI than Center B and experienced decreased 1-year survival, the difference was not significant for CABG. In part, the differences are attributable to contrasting referral practices and the discrepant rates of PCI and CABG between centers. Review of all coronary artery disease patients with a multidisciplinary Heart Team including a surgical opinion may lead to a more evidence-based referral practice aligned with current clinical guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Bypass Surgery for Patients With Left Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial.

The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) demonstrated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, no significant difference between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents for the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality at 5 years was higher with PCI. Long-term cost-effectiveness of these 2 strategies has heretofore not been evaluated. From 2010 to 2014, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=957) or PCI (n=948). Costs ($2019) were assessed over 5 years using resource-based costing and Medicare reimbursement rates. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire. Five-year EXCEL data in combination with US lifetables were used to develop a Markov model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was considered highly cost-effective. Index revascularization procedure costs were $4,850/patient higher with CABG, and total costs for the index hospitalization were $17 610/patient higher with CABG ($32 297 versus $19 687, P<0.001). Cumulative 5-year costs were $20 449/patient higher with CABG. CABG was projected to increase lifetime costs by $21 551 while increasing quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44 235/QALY. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis using mortality hazard ratios from a meta-analysis of all randomized CABG versus PCI in left main disease trials, the gain associated with CABG was 0.08 to 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $139 775 to $232 710/QALY gained. Based on data from the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for patients with significant left main coronary artery disease. However, this conclusion is sensitive to the long-term mortality rates with the 2 strategies, and CABG is no longer highly cost-effective when substituting the pooled treatment effect from the 4 major PCI versus CABG trials for left main disease. URL: https://www. gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.