The effect of age on outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery compared with balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stent implantation among patients with multivessel coronary disease. A collaborative analysis of individual patient data from 10 randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess whether patient age modifies the comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Increasingly, CABG and PCI are performed in older patients to treat multivessel disease, but their comparative effectiveness is uncertain. METHODS: Individual data from 7,812 patients randomized in 1 of 10 clinical trials of CABG or PCI were pooled. Age was analyzed as a continuous variable in the primary analysis and was divided into tertiles for descriptive purposes (≤56.2 years, 56.3 to 65.1 years, ≥65.2 years). The outcomes assessed were death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization over complete follow-up, and angina at 1 year. RESULTS: Older patients were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, and 3-vessel disease compared with younger patients (p < 0.001 for trend). Over a median follow-up of 5.9 years, the effect of CABG versus PCI on mortality varied according to age (interaction p < 0.01), with adjusted CABG-to-PCI hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 1.23 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.59) in the youngest tertile; 0.89 (95% CI: 0.73 to 1.10) in the middle tertile; and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.67 to 0.94) in the oldest tertile. The CABG-to-PCI hazard ratio of less than 1 for patients 59 years of age and older. A similar interaction of age with treatment was present for the composite outcome of death or myocardial infarction. In contrast, patient age did not alter the comparative effectiveness of CABG and PCI on the outcomes of repeat revascularization or angina. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age modifies the comparative effectiveness of CABG and PCI on hard cardiac events, with CABG favored at older ages and PCI favored at younger ages

One-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting for multisystem disease: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized clinical trials

BackgroundWe aimed to provide a quantitative analysis of the 1-year clinical outcomes of patients with multisystem coronary artery disease who were included in recent randomized trials of percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery.MethodsAn individual patient database was composed of 4 trials (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study, Stent or Surgery Trial, Argentine Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Multivessel Disease 2, and Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study 2) that compared percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting (N = 1518) versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery (N = 1533). The primary clinical end point of this study was the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 1 year after randomization. Secondary combined end points included the incidence of repeat revascularization at 1 year. All analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle.ResultsAfter 1 year of follow-up, 8.7% of patients randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting versus 9.1% of patients randomized to coronary artery bypass graft surgery reached the primary clinical end point (hazard ratio 0.95 and 95% confidence interval 0.74’1.2). Repeat revascularization procedures occurred more frequently in patients allocated to percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting compared with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (18% vs 4.4%; hazard ratio 4.4 and 95% confidence interval 3.3’5.9). The percentage of patients who were free from angina was slightly lower after percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting than after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (77% vs 82%; P = .002).ConclusionsOne year after the initial procedure, percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting and coronary artery bypass graft surgery provided a similar degree of protection against death, myocardial infarction, or stroke for patients with multisystem disease. Repeat revascularization procedures remain high after percutaneous coronary intervention, but the difference with coronary artery bypass graft surgery has narrowed in the era of stenting

Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

Background: Numerous randomised trials have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, no studies have been powered to detect a difference in mortality between the revascularisation strategies. Methods: We did a systematic review up to July 19, 2017, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents. Eligible studies included patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease who did not present with acute myocardial infarction, did PCI with stents (bare-metal or drug-eluting), and had more than 1 year of follow-up for all-cause mortality. In a collaborative, pooled analysis of individual patient data from the identified trials, we estimated all-cause mortality up to 5 years using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared PCI with CABG using a random-effects Cox proportional-hazards model stratified by trial. Consistency of treatment effect was explored in subgroup analyses, with subgroups defined according to baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics. Findings: We included 11 randomised trials involving 11 518 patients selected by heart teams who were assigned to PCI (n=5753) or to CABG (n=5765). 976 patients died over a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (SD 1·4). Mean Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was 26·0 (SD 9·5), with 1798 (22·1%) of 8138 patients having a SYNTAX score of 33 or higher. 5 year all-cause mortality was 11·2% after PCI and 9·2% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20, 95% CI 1·06–1·37; p=0·0038). 5 year all-cause mortality was significantly different between the interventions in patients with multivessel disease (11·5% after PCI vs 8·9% after CABG; HR 1·28, 95% CI 1·09–1·49; p=0·0019), including in those with diabetes (15·5% vs 10·0%; 1·48, 1·19–1·84; p=0·0004), but not in those without diabetes (8·7% vs 8·0%; 1·08, 0·86–1·36; p=0·49). SYNTAX score had a significant effect on the difference between the interventions in multivessel disease. 5 year all-cause mortality was similar between the interventions in patients with left main disease (10·7% after PCI vs 10·5% after CABG; 1·07, 0·87–1·33; p=0·52), regardless of diabetes status and SYNTAX score. Interpretation: CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies

Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three vessel disease: 1-year results of the SYNTAX II study

Aims To investigate if recent technical and procedural developments in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) significantly influence outcomes in appropriately selected patients with three-vessel (3VD) coronary artery disease. Methods and Results The SYNTAX II study is a multicenter, all-comers, open-label, single arm study that investigated the impact of a contemporary PCI strategy on clinical outcomes in patients with 3VD in 22 centres from four European countries. The SYNTAX-II strategy includes: heart team decision-making utilizing the SYNTAX Score II (a clinical tool combining anatomical and clinical factors), coronary physiology guided revascularisation, implantation of thin strut bioresorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided stent implantation, contemporary chronic total occlusion revascularisation techniques and guideline-directed medical therapy. The rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE [composite of all-cause death, cerebrovascular event, any myocardial infarction and any revascularisation]) at one year was compared to a predefined PCI cohort from the original SYNTAX-I trial selected on the basis of equipoise 4-year mortality between CABG and PCI. As an exploratory endpoint, comparisons were made with the historical CABG cohort of the original SYNTAX-I trial. Overall 708 patients were screened and discussed within the heart team; 454 patients were deemed appropriate to undergo PCI. At one year, the SYNTAX-II strategy was superior to the equipoise-derived SYNTAX-I PCI cohort (MACCE SYNTAX-II 10.6% vs. SYNTAX-I 17.4%; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.85, P = 0.006). This difference was driven by a significant reduction in the incidence of MI (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11–0.70, P = 0.007) and revascularisation (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37–0.9, P = 0.015). Rates of all-cause death (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27–1.73, P = 0.43) and stroke (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.10–4.89, P = 0.71) were similar. The rate of definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower in SYNTAX-II (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07–0.97, P = 0.045). Conclusion At one year, clinical outcomes with the SYNTAX-II strategy were associated with improved clinical results compared to the PCI performed in comparable patients from the original SYNTAX-I trial. Longer term follow-up is awaited and a randomized clinical trial with contemporary CABG is warranted.</p