Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Research Articles

127 Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Stratified by Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Abstract Aim The primary objectives were to assess differences in mortality, repeat revascularization, new postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebrovascular accidents (CVA/stroke) between PCI and CABG in HFrEF patients, stratified by the degree of LVEF reduction. Method A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria comprised clinical trials or observational cohort studies with ≥20 patients per group, comparing long-term outcomes in HFrEF patients (LVEF <50%) who underwent PCI or CABG. Data was extracted, and quality was assessed using the New Castle Ottawa (NOS) Risk of Bias tool. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled for time-to-event outcomes, with subgroup analysis based on LVEF. Heterogeneity was assessed, sensitivity analysis conducted, and publication bias evaluated. Results Twenty studies involving 25,031 patients met the inclusion criteria. In the severe LVEF reduction group (<35%), CABG was associated with significantly higher long-term survival, reduced repeat revascularization, and fewer postoperative MIs compared to PCI. In patients with moderate LVEF reduction (<40%), there was no difference in long-term survival, but repeat revascularization was lower in the CABG group . In the mild LVEF reduction group (<50%), CABG was associated with superior long-term survival and reduced repeat revascularization. Stroke rates were similar between PCI and CABG in all groups. Conclusions Individualized patient care should consider the degree of LVEF reduction when selecting between PCI and CABG, with CABG generally favored for improved outcomes in HFrEF patients. However, clinical presentation, patient characteristics, and cost-effectiveness should also be considered in the decision-making process.

Comparative Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials.

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major global health issue and a leading cause of death. This study compares the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the management of IHD, focusing on their impact on revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and post-procedural stroke. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of PCI and CABG in treating IHD based on an exhaustive literature review of the past 5 years, emphasizing recent advancements and outcomes in IHD management. A comprehensive literature review analyzed 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The study specifically assessed the incidences of revascularization, stroke, and MI in patients treated with either PCI or CABG. The comparison between CABG and PCI exclusively focused on lesions with a SYNTAX score exceeding 32. Our findings highlight CABG's significant efficacy over PCI in reducing revascularization and MI. The aggregated Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) value for revascularization was 1.85 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.65 - 2.07), signifying CABG's advantage. Additionally, CABG demonstrated superior performance in diminishing MI occurrences (M-H = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.13 - 6.53). In contrast, PCI was more effective in reducing stroke (M-H = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.10). The study confirms CABG's superiority in reducing revascularization and MI in IHD patients, highlighting PCI's effectiveness in reducing stroke risk. These findings underscore the importance of personalized treatment strategies in IHD management and emphasize the need for ongoing research and evidence-based guidelines to aid in treatment selection for IHD patients.

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).

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With a Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients Receiving Dialysis: A National Study From Taiwan

Rationale & ObjectiveTo study the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent and coronary artery bypass grafting in dialysis patients. Study DesignRetrospective observational cohort study. Setting & ParticipantsThis population-based study identified dialysis patients hospitalized for coronary revascularization between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2015 in Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. ExposuresPercutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting. OutcomesAll-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, and repeat revascularization. Analytical ApproachPropensity scores were used to match patients. Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression models were constructed to examine associations between revascularization strategies and mortality. Interval Cox models were fit to estimate time-varying hazards during different periods. ResultsA total of 1,840 propensity score-matched dialysis patients were analyzed. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent, crude mortality rate 12.5% vs. 3.3%; adjusted odds ratio 5.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42-7.97; p < 0.001), and longer hospitalization duration (median [interquartile range], 20 [14-30] days vs. 3 [2-8] days, p < 0.001). After discharge, repeat revascularization, acute coronary syndrome, and repeat hospitalization all occurred more frequently in the percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent group. Importantly, with a median follow-up of 2.8 years, coronary artery bypass grafting was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.35, p = 0.006) in the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses yielded consistent results. LimitationsObservational study with mainly Asian ethnicity. ConclusionsPercutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent may be associated with better survival than coronary artery bypass grafting in dialysis patients. Future studies are warranted to confirm this finding. Plain Language SummaryAlthough in the general population coronary artery bypass grafting offers better long-term survival than percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent, dialysis patients may be too frail to tolerate the increased perioperative mortality risk of coronary artery bypass grafting. In this retrospective study in a national cohort of Taiwan dialysis patients, percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and better long-term survival when compared with coronary artery bypass grafting. Subsequent acute coronary syndrome, repeat revascularization, and re-hospitalization developed more frequently in the percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent group. These findings may suggest percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent as a safe revascularization strategy for dialysis patients.

Long-Term Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan–Meier-Derived Data

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an alternative option to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but the long-term outcomes of HCR versus CABG remain unclear. We aimed to analyze the long-term outcomes after HCR and CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease using meta-analysis. A systemic literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was performed from inception to March 2023. Studies reporting Kaplan-Meier curves with follow-up ≥1year were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and repeat revascularization. In total, 13 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 12 propensity-score matched observational studies) were analyzed. The mean follow-up period was 5.1 ± 3.1years. HCR was associated with similar overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.36), significantly higher incidence of MACCEs (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.06), and repeat revascularization (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.64) compared with CABG. In phase-specific analysis, the mortality rate was similar, and the incidence of repeat revascularization was higher in HCR regardless of phases. The incidence of MACCEs was higher in HCR during the mid-term phase (1 to 5years), but it was similar during the long-term phase (long-term: ≥5years). In conclusion, despite the higher incidence of MACCEs and repeat revascularization compared with CABG, HCR offered a similar long-term survival. Even longer-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials with a large population are warranted to investigate the role of HCR for multivessel coronary artery disease.

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

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.

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.

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.

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) versuscoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD): A meta-analysis of 14 studies comprising 4226 patients.

To compare the outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). HCR has emerged as an alternative to CABG in patients with MVCAD. Through minimally invasive surgical techniques, HCR carries the potential for faster recovery postoperatively, fewer complications, and lower utilization of resources. Systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to December 2021 and studies comparing HCR with CABG in the treatment of MVCAD were included in this meta-analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were incidence of 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE). Fourteen studies (12 observational studies and 2randomized controlled trials) comprising 4226 patients were included. The rates of 5-year mortality (odds ratios[OR]: 1.55; 95%confidence interval[CI]: 0.92-2.62; I2 = 83.0%) and long-term MACCE (OR: 0.97; 95%CI: 0.47-2.01; I2 = 74.7%) were comparable between HCR and CABG groups. HCR was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of perioperative blood transfusion (OR: 0.36; 95%CI: 0.25-0.51; I2 = 55.9%), shorter mean hospital stay (weighted mean difference: -2.04; 95%CI: -2.60 to -1.47; I2 = 54%), and risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.23-0.88; p = 0.02). CABG demonstrated a lower likelihood of requiring long-term repeat revascularization (OR: 1.51; 95%CI: 1.03-2.20; I2 = 18%) over a follow-up duration of 29.14 ± 21.75 months. This meta-analysis suggests that HCR is feasible and safe for the treatment of MVCAD. However, benefits of HCR should be carefully weighed against the increased long-term risk of repeat-revascularization when selecting patients, and further studies evaluating differences in long-term mortality between HCR and CABG are required.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Stable Patients with Three Vessel Coronary Artery Disease, Low Syntax Score and Impaired Systolic Function

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Stable Patients with Three Vessel Coronary Artery Disease, Low Syntax Score and Impaired Systolic Function

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.

Meta-Analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Narrowing

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) have reported conflicting results. We performed a systematic review up to May 23, 2021, and 1-stage reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to compare outcomes between both groups. The primary outcome was 10-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization at 5years. We performed individual patient data meta-analysis using published Kaplan-Meier curves to provide individual data points in coordinates and numbers at risk were used to increase the calibration accuracy of the reconstructed data. Shared frailty model or, when proportionality assumptions were not met, a restricted mean survival time model were fitted to compare outcomes between treatment groups. Of 583 articles retrieved, 5 RCTs were included. A total of 4,595 patients from these 5 RCTs were randomly assigned to PCI (n=2,297) or CABG (n=2,298). The cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality after PCI and CABG was 12.0% versus 10.6%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.093, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.925 to 1.292; p=0.296). PCI conferred similar time-to-MI (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.006, 95% CI 0.992 to 1.021, p=0.391) and stroke (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.005, 95% CI 0.998 to 1.013, p=0.133) at 5years. Unplanned revascularization was more frequent after PCI than CABG (HR 1.807, 95% CI 1.524 to 2.144, p <0.001) at 5years. This meta-analysis using reconstructed participant-level time-to-event data showed no statistically significant difference in cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality between PCI versus CABG in the treatment of LMCAD.

Endoscopic vs Open Vein Harvest in Drug-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Disease Trial

BackgroundWe investigated outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) vs open vein harvest (OVH) within the Evaluation of XIENCE Versus CABG (EXCEL) trial. MethodsAll patients in EXCEL randomized to CABG were included in this study. For this analysis, the primary end points were ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR) and graft stenosis or occlusion at 5 years. Additional end points were as follows: a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; bleeding; blood product transfusion; major arrhythmia; and infection requiring antibiotics. Event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. ResultsOf the 957 patients randomized to CABG, 686 (71.7%) received at least 1 venous graft with 257 (37.5%) patients in the EVH group and 429 (62.5%) patients in the OVH group. At 5 years, IDR was higher (11.5% vs 6.7%; P = .047) in the EVH group. At 5 years, rates of graft stenosis or occlusion (9.7% vs 5.4%; P = .054) and the primary end point (17.4% vs 20.9%; P = .27) were similar. In-hospital bleeding (11.3% vs 13.8%; P = .35), in-hospital blood product transfusion (12.8% vs 13.1%; P = .94), and infection requiring antibiotics within 1 month (13.6% vs 16.8%; P = .27) were similar between EVH and OVH patients. Major arrhythmia in the hospital (19.8% vs 13.5%; P = .03) and within 1 month (21.8% vs 15.4%; P = .03) was higher in EVH patients. ConclusionsIDR at 5 years was higher in the EVH group. EVH and OVH patients had similar rates of graft stenosis or occlusion and the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Distal Left Main Coronary Disease

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Distal Left Main Coronary Disease

Sex-Specific Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To assess whether outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease differ between men and women. Current guidelines recommend either PCI or CABG for patients with unprotected LMCA disease and low-to-intermediate anatomical complexity. However, it is unclear whether these guidelines apply to women, who are underrepresented in clinical trials. An electronic search was performed to identify studies reporting sex-specific outcomes after PCI versus CABG in patients with LMCA disease. Trial level hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by random-effects modelling. Eight (8) studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 13,066 patients (24.3% women). In both sexes, there was no difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke (HR in women: 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.40; HR in men: 1.04, 95% CI 0.92-1.17). However, both sexes were more likely to require repeat revascularisation after PCI. There was no interaction between sex and treatment effect for the primary composite endpoint nor for the individual outcomes of death, stroke and repeat revascularisation. However, in women the risk of myocardial infarction was higher after PCI compared with CABG (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06-3.18), with a trend toward the opposite in men (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54-1.13; p-interaction=0.01). Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG have a comparable risk of the composite outcome of death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients undergoing revascularisation for LMCA disease, with no significant interaction between sex and treatment effect.

Safety and Efficacy of PCI Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft in Patients with STEMI and Unprotected Left Main Stem Disease: A Systematic Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;amp; Meta-Analysis

Safety and Efficacy of PCI Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft in Patients with STEMI and Unprotected Left Main Stem Disease: A Systematic Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;amp; Meta-Analysis

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis