Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on clinical outcomes after left main coronary artery revascularization

Aim: To evaluate the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on 3-year outcomes in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the EXCEL trial. Methods and results: The EXCEL trial randomized patients with LMCAD to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents (n = 948) or CABG (n = 957). Among 1804 patients with known baseline LVEF, 74 (4.1%) had LVEF <40% [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)], 152 (8.4%) LVEF 40–49% [heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF)] and 1578 (87.5%) LVEF ≥50% (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction). Patients with HFrEF vs. HFmrEF vs. preserved LVEF experienced a longer postoperative hospital stay (9.0 vs. 7.0 vs. 6.0 days, P = 0.02) with greater peri-procedural complications after CABG, while hospital stay after PCI was unaffected by LVEF (1.5 vs. 2.0 vs. 1.0 days, P = 0.20). The composite primary endpoint of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years was 29.3% (PCI) vs. 27.6% (CABG) in patients with HFrEF, 16.2% vs. 15.0% in patients with HFmrEF, and 14.5% vs. 14.6% in those with preserved LVEF, respectively (Pinteraction = 0.90). Smoothing spline analysis demonstrated that the 3-year risk of all-cause death increased when LVEF decreased, both in patients undergoing CABG and PCI. Conclusion: In the EXCEL trial, the composite rate of death, stroke or myocardial infarction at 3 years was significantly higher in patients with HFrEF compared with HFmrEF or preserved LVEF, driven by an increased rate of all-cause death. No significant differences after PCI vs. CABG were observed among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF and preserved LVEF. Longer-term follow-up could provide important insights on differences in clinical outcomes that might emerge over time. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01205776

Impact of non-respect of SYNTAX score II recommendation for surgery in patients with left main coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: an EXCEL substudy

OBJECTIVES: The SYNTAX score II (SSII) was developed from the SYNTAX trial to predict the 4-year all-cause mortality after left main or multivessel disease revascularization and to facilitate the decision-making process. The SSII provides the following treatment recommendations: (i) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (equipoise risk), (ii) CABG preferred (excessive risk for PCI) or (iii) PCI preferred (excessive risk for CABG). We sought to externally validate SSII and to investigate the impact of not abiding by the SSII recommendations in the randomized EXCEL trial of PCI versus CABG for left main disease. METHODS: The calibration plot of predicted versus observed 4-year mortality was constructed from individual values of SSII in EXCEL. To assess overestimation versus underestimation of predicted mortality risk, an optimal fit regression line with slope and intercept was determined. Prospective treatment recommendations based on SSII were compared with actual treatments and all-cause mortality at 4 years. RESULTS: SSII variables were available from EXCEL trial in 1807/1905 (95%) patients. For the entire cohort, discrimination was possibly helpful (C statistic = 0.670). SSII-predicted all-cause mortality at 4 years overestimated the observed mortality, particularly in the highest-risk percentiles, as confirmed by the fit regression line [intercept 2.37 (1.51-3.24), P = 0.003; slope 0.67 (0.61-0.74), P < 0.001]. When the SSII-recommended treatment was CABG, randomized EXCEL patients treated with PCI had a trend towards higher mortality compared with those treated with CABG (14.1% vs 5.3%, P = 0.07) in the as-treat population. In the intention-to-treat population, patients randomized to PCI had higher mortality compared with those randomized to CABG (15.1% vs 4.1%, P = 0.02), when SSII recommended CABG. CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial of patients with left main disease, the SSII-predicted 4-year mortality overestimated the 4-year observed mortality with a possibly helpful discrimination. Non-compliance with SSII CABG treatment recommendations (i.e. randomized to PCI) was associated with higher 4-year all-cause mortality

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial

Background: There is limited information on the incidence and prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Objectives: This study sought to determine the incidence of NOAF following PCI and CABG for LMCAD and its effect on 3-year cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. Outcomes were analyzed according to the development of NOAF during the initial hospitalization following revascularization. Results: Among 1,812 patients without atrial fibrillation on presentation, NOAF developed at a mean of 2.7 ± 2.5 days after revascularization in 162 patients (8.9%), including 161 of 893 (18.0%) CABG-treated patients and 1 of 919 (0.1%) PCI-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Older age, greater body mass index, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of NOAF in patients undergoing CABG. Patients with versus without NOAF had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization, were more likely to be discharged on anticoagulant therapy, and had an increased 30-day rate of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding (14.2% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.0001). By multivariable analysis, NOAF after CABG was an independent predictor of 3-year stroke (6.6% vs. 2.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74 to 10.11; p = 0.001), death (11.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted HR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.60 to 5.70; p = 0.0006), and the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke (22.6% vs. 12.8%; adjusted HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.25; p = 0.0004). Conclusions: In patients with LMCAD undergoing revascularization in the EXCEL trial, NOAF was common after CABG but extremely rare after PCI. The development of NOAF was strongly associated with subsequent death and stroke in CABG-treated patients. Further studies are warranted to determine whether prophylactic strategies to prevent or treat atrial fibrillation may improve prognosis in patients with LMCAD who are undergoing CABG. (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularizatio

B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Assessment in Patients Undergoing Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND: Elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is reflective of impaired cardiac function and is associated with worse prognosis among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to assess the association between baseline BNP, adverse outcomes, and the relative efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main CAD. METHODS: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) randomized patients with left main CAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the associations between normal versus elevated BNP (≥100 pg/mL), randomized treatment, and the 3-year risk of adverse events. RESULTS: BNP at baseline was elevated in 410 of 1037 (39.5%) patients enrolled in EXCEL. Patients with elevated BNP levels were older and more frequently had additional cardiovascular risk factors and lower left ventricular ejection fraction than those with normal BNP, but had similar SYNTAX scores. Patients with elevated BNP had significantly higher 3-year rates of the primary end point (18.6% versus 11.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.28; P=0.005) and higher mortality (11.5% versus 3.9%; adjusted HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.48-4.19; P=0.0006), both from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes. In contrast, there were no significant differences in the risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, graft occlusion, or major bleeding. A significant interaction ( Pinteraction=0.03) was present between elevated versus normal BNP and treatment with PCI versus CABG for the adjusted risk of the primary composite end point at 3 years among patients with elevated BNP (adjusted HR for PCI versus CABG, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.96-2.47) versus normal BNP (adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.46-1.20). This interaction was stronger when log(BNP) was modeled as a continuous variable ( Pinteraction=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, elevated baseline BNP levels in patients with left main CAD undergoing revascularization were independently associated with long-term mortality but not nonfatal adverse ischemic or bleeding events. The relative long-term outcomes after PCI versus CABG for revascularization of left main CAD may be conditioned by the baseline BNP level. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01205776