Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in complex coronary artery disease: Long-term clinical outcomes from a high-volume center

Background: 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....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kerrick Hesse, Mohaned Egred, Azfar Zaman, Mohammad Alkhalil, Mohamed Farag
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2023-01-01
Series:Heart Views
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.heartviews.org/article.asp?issn=1995-705X;year=2023;volume=24;issue=3;spage=141;epage=147;aulast=Hesse
_version_ 1797738833896275968
author Kerrick Hesse
Mohaned Egred
Azfar Zaman
Mohammad Alkhalil
Mohamed Farag
author_facet Kerrick Hesse
Mohaned Egred
Azfar Zaman
Mohammad Alkhalil
Mohamed Farag
author_sort Kerrick Hesse
collection DOAJ
description Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T13:49:32Z
format Article
id doaj.art-e70e907c10a740e4b812cdbaca4489ae
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1995-705X
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T13:49:32Z
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Heart Views
spelling doaj.art-e70e907c10a740e4b812cdbaca4489ae2023-08-23T07:29:56ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsHeart Views1995-705X2023-01-0124314114710.4103/heartviews.heartviews_116_22Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in complex coronary artery disease: Long-term clinical outcomes from a high-volume centerKerrick HesseMohaned EgredAzfar ZamanMohammad AlkhalilMohamed FaragBackground: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.http://www.heartviews.org/article.asp?issn=1995-705X;year=2023;volume=24;issue=3;spage=141;epage=147;aulast=Hessecoronary artery bypass grafting surgerycoronary artery diseasemyocardial infarctionoutcomepercutaneous coronary interventionrevascularization
spellingShingle Kerrick Hesse
Mohaned Egred
Azfar Zaman
Mohammad Alkhalil
Mohamed Farag
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in complex coronary artery disease: Long-term clinical outcomes from a high-volume center
Heart Views
coronary artery bypass grafting surgery
coronary artery disease
myocardial infarction
outcome
percutaneous coronary intervention
revascularization
title Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in complex coronary artery disease: Long-term clinical outcomes from a high-volume center
title_full Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in complex coronary artery disease: Long-term clinical outcomes from a high-volume center
title_fullStr Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in complex coronary artery disease: Long-term clinical outcomes from a high-volume center
title_full_unstemmed Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in complex coronary artery disease: Long-term clinical outcomes from a high-volume center
title_short Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in complex coronary artery disease: Long-term clinical outcomes from a high-volume center
title_sort percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in complex coronary artery disease long term clinical outcomes from a high volume center
topic coronary artery bypass grafting surgery
coronary artery disease
myocardial infarction
outcome
percutaneous coronary intervention
revascularization
url http://www.heartviews.org/article.asp?issn=1995-705X;year=2023;volume=24;issue=3;spage=141;epage=147;aulast=Hesse
work_keys_str_mv AT kerrickhesse percutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassgraftingincomplexcoronaryarterydiseaselongtermclinicaloutcomesfromahighvolumecenter
AT mohanedegred percutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassgraftingincomplexcoronaryarterydiseaselongtermclinicaloutcomesfromahighvolumecenter
AT azfarzaman percutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassgraftingincomplexcoronaryarterydiseaselongtermclinicaloutcomesfromahighvolumecenter
AT mohammadalkhalil percutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassgraftingincomplexcoronaryarterydiseaselongtermclinicaloutcomesfromahighvolumecenter
AT mohamedfarag percutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassgraftingincomplexcoronaryarterydiseaselongtermclinicaloutcomesfromahighvolumecenter