Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Comparison of vasoactive-inotropic score, vasoactive-ventilation-renal score, and modified vasoactive-ventilation-renal score for predicting the poor prognosis after coronary artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND

Exploring reliable prediction scoring systems is valuable for the poor prognosis of patients after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Herein, we explored and compared the predictive performance of vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS), vasoactive-ventilation-renal (VVR) score, and modified VVR (M-VVR) score in the poor prognosis of patients undergoing CABG.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed in Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, and data of 537 patients were collected from January 2019 to May 2021. The independent variables were VIS, VVR, and M-VVR. Study endpoint of interest was the poor prognosis. Association between VIS, VVR, M-VVR and poor prognosis was assessed using logistic regression analysis, and odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. The performance of VIS, VVR, and M-VVR to predict the poor prognosis was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC), and differences of the AUC of the three scoring systems were compared using DeLong test.

RESULTS

After adjusting gender, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, surgery methods, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), VIS (OR: 1.09, 95%CI: 1.05-1.13) and M-VVR (OR: 1.09, 95%CI: 1.06-1.12) were associated with the increased odds of poor prognosis. The AUC of M-VVR, VVR, and VIS was 0.720 (95%CI: 0.668-0.771), 0.621 (95%CI: 0.566-0.677), and 0.685 (95%CI: 0.631-0.739), respectively. DeLong test displayed that the performance of M-VVR was better than VVR (P = 0.004) and VIS (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found the good prediction performance of M-VVR for the poor prognosis of patients undergoing CABG, indicating that M-VVR may be a useful prediction index in the clinic.

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on outcomes after left main revascularization: g-LM Registry

AIMS

The impact of left ventricular dysfunction on clinical outcomes following revascularization is not well established in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCA). In this study, we evaluated the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on clinical outcomes of patients with ULMCA requiring revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

METHODS

The details of the design, methods, end points, and relevant definitions are outlined in the Gulf Left Main Registry: a retrospective, observational study conducted between January 2015 and December 2019 across 14 centres in 3 Gulf countries. In this study, the data on patients with ULMCA who underwent revascularization through PCI or CABG were stratified by LVEF into three main subgroups; low (l-LVEF <40%), mid-range (m-LVEF 40-49%), and preserved (p-LVEF ≥50%). Primary outcomes were hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and mortality and follow-up MACCE and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 2137 patients were included; 1221 underwent PCI and 916 had CABG. During hospitalization, MACCE was significantly higher in patients with l-LVEF [(10.10%), P = 0.005] and m-LVEF [(10.80%), P = 0.009], whereas total mortality was higher in patients with m-LVEF [(7.40%), P = 0.009] and p-LVEF [(7.10%), P = 0.045] who underwent CABG. There was no mortality difference between groups in patients with l-LVEF. At a median follow-up of 15 months, there was no difference in MACCE and total mortality between patients who underwent CABG or PCI with p-LVEF and m-LVEF.

CONCLUSION

CABG was associated with higher in-hospital events. Hospital mortality in patients with l-LVEF was comparable between CABG and PCI. At 15 months' follow-up, PCI could have an advantage in decreasing MACCE in patients with l-LVEF.

Is the world ready for the STICH 3.0 trial?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is responsible for >50% of heart failures cases. Patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) are known to have poorer outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared to patients with a normal ejection fraction. Nevertheless, <1% of patients in coronary revascularization trials to date had iLVSD. The purpose of this review is to describe coronary revascularization modalities in patients with iLVSD and highlight the need for randomized controlled trial evidence comparing these treatments in this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Network meta-analytic findings of observational studies suggest that PCI is associated with higher rates of mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization but not stroke compared to CABG in iLVSD. In recent years, outcomes for patients undergoing PCI have improved as a result of advances in technologies and techniques.

SUMMARY

The optimal coronary revascularization modality in patients with iLVSD remains unknown. In observational studies, CABG appears superior to PCI; however, direct randomized evidence is absent and developments in PCI techniques have improved post-PCI outcomes in recent years. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure 3.0 consortium of trials will seek to address the clinical equipoise in coronary revascularization in patients with iLVSD.