Transatlantic editorial: A comparison between European and North American guidelines on myocardial revascularization

Outcomes after surgical revascularization in diabetic patients

OBJECTIVES

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have been repeatedly demonstrated to have worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without DM. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of DM on 1-year clinical outcomes after isolated CABG.

METHODS

The European DuraGraft registry included 1130 patients (44.6%) with and 1402 (55.4%) patients without DM undergoing isolated CABG. Intra-operatively, all free venous and arterial grafts were treated with an endothelial damage inhibitor. Primary end point in this analysis was the incidence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, repeat revascularization or myocardial infarction at 1 year post-CABG. To balance between differences in baseline characteristics (n = 1072 patients in each group), propensity score matching was used. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to identify independent predictors of MACE.

RESULTS

Diabetic patients had a higher cardiovascular risk profile and EuroSCORE II with overall more comorbidities. Patients were comparable in regard to surgical techniques and completeness of revascularization. At 1 year, diabetics had a higher MACE rate {7.9% vs 5.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.95], P = 0.02}, driven by increased rates of death [5.6% vs 3.5%, HR 1.61 (95% CI 1.10-2.36), P = 0.01] and myocardial infarction [2.8% vs 1.4%, HR 1.99 (95% CI 1.12-3.53) P = 0.02]. Following propensity matching, no statistically significant difference was found for MACE [7.1% vs 5.7%, HR 1.23 (95% CI 0.87-1.74) P = 0.23] or its components. Age, critical operative state, extracardiac arteriopathy, ejection fraction ≤50% and left main disease but not DM were identified as independent predictors for MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, 1-year outcomes in diabetics undergoing isolated CABG were comparable to patients without DM.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus total arterial revascularization for the treatment of left main coronary artery disease

Background

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) has a similar clinical outcome to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in treating multivessel disease. However, the outcome of HCR in treating left main coronary artery (LM) disease is unclear. This study sought to compare the clinical outcome of HCR with total arterial revascularization (TAR) for treating LM disease.

Methods

Patients who underwent treatment for LM disease in our center between January 2009 and December 2019 were selected. Of these, 33 patients underwent HCR, and 70 patients underwent TAR. The primary efficacy outcome of this study was mid-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The primary safety outcome was perioperative MACCE.

Results

The incidence of postoperative outcomes was comparable between the two groups after adjustment with inverse probability weighting (IPW) (P>0.05). The median follow-up time was 47 (interquartile range, 20 to 85) months. There was no significant difference in the incidence of all mid-term outcomes and the freedom of MACCE between the two groups after adjustment (P>0.05). The Cox proportional hazard model demonstrated that HCR was not a significant determinant for MACCE [hazard ratio (HR) =3.516, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.835 to 14.813].

Conclusions

HCR may be safe and effective for the treatment of LM disease compared with TAR.

Multiple Arterial Grafting Is Associated With Better Outcomes for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Patients

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have shown better survival in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with 2 arterial grafts compared with 1. However, whether a third arterial graft is associated with incremental benefit remains uncertain. We sought to analyze the outcomes of 3 versus 2 arterial grafts during CABG. As a secondary objective, we compared CABG with 2 or 3 arterial grafts (multiple arterial grafts [MAG]) with CABG using a single arterial graft (SAG).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analyses of all patients undergoing primary isolated CABG in Ontario, Canada, from October 2008 to March 2016. Propensity score matching was performed between patients with 3 arterial grafts (3Art group) versus 2 (2Art group). The primary outcome was time to first event of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Additional analyses were performed to evaluate the association between MAG versus SAG and long-term outcomes using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Fifty thousand, two hundred thirty patients underwent isolated CABG during our study period; 3044 (6.1%) and 8253 (16.4%) patients had 3 and 2 arterial grafts, respectively, resulting in 2789 propensity score matching pairs for the primary analyses. Mean and maximum follow-up was 4.2 and 8.5 years, respectively. Radial artery grafting was more common in the 3Art versus 2Art group (79.3% versus 65.6%, P<0.01). In-hospital outcomes were not significantly different, including death (3Art 0.8% versus 2Art 0.5%, P=0.26). Up to 8 years, there were no differences in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (3Art 27%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 24% to 30% versus 2Art 25%, 95% CI, 22% to 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.08, 95% CI, 0.94-1.25), death (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.87-1.51), stroke (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95-2.06), or repeat revascularization (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.32). When evaluating MAG versus SAG, 8629 patient pairs were formed using propensity score matching. At 8 years, cumulative incidences of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (HR, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), survival (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.88), repeat revascularization (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90), and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97) were superior in the MAG group.

CONCLUSIONS

CABG with 3 arterial grafts was not associated with increased in-hospital death nor with better clinical outcomes at 8-year follow-up, compared with CABG with 2 arterial grafts. MAG was associated with superior outcomes compared with SAG.

Comparison of patients with multivessel disease treated at centers with and without on-site cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

The regional needs and consolidation of cardiac surgery services (CSS) result in an increased number of stand-alone interventional cardiology units. We aimed to explore the impact of a heart team on the decision making and outcomes of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease referred for coronary revascularization in stand-alone interventional cardiology units.

METHODS

This prospective study included 1063 consecutive patients with multivessel disease enrolled between January and April 2013 from all 22 hospitals in Israel that perform coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with or without on-site CSS.

RESULTS

Of the 1063 patients, 487 (46%) underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and 576 (54%) underwent PCI. A higher proportion of patients underwent PCI in hospitals without on-site CSS compared with those with on-site CSS (65% vs 46%; P < .001). Furthermore, patients referred to CABG from hospitals without on-site CSS had a significantly higher mean SYNTAX score compared with those who underwent CABG in centers with on-site CSS (29 vs 26; P = .018). Multivariate logistic regression analysis consistently showed that the absence of on-site cardiac surgery and a heart team was independently associated with a 2.5-fold increased likelihood for predicting the referral of PCI rather than CABG (odds ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated in centers without on-site cardiac surgery services receive a lower rate of appropriate guideline-based intervention with CABG. These findings suggest that a heart team approach should be mandatory even in centers with stand-alone interventional cardiology units.