Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Heart Transplant Recipients With Transplant Coronary Arterial Vasculopathy

In the Twilight of Evidence: Is Bypass Surgery Still on the Table for Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy?

Background: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a major prognosis-limiting factor in patients undergoing orthotopic heart transplantation (HT). Due to the diffuse involvement of the coronary tree, CAV lesions are often not amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), leaving coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and retransplantation as primary revascularization options. Aim and Results: The latest guidelines from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) recognize CABG as a viable option but with a downgraded strength of recommendation. The 2023 ISHLT guidelines now categorize CABG as a Class IIb recommendation (Level of Evidence: C) for highly selected CAV patients with anatomically suitable lesions, a downgrade from the Class IIa recommendation in the 2010 guidelines. This adjustment underscores the persisting reliance on limited, retrospective studies and the lack of substantial new data supporting CABG in CAV management. Our article examines the evidence collected since 2010 on this topic, highlighting key findings and assessing the role of CABG in contemporary transplant practice. This article calls for targeted investigations to better define the role of CABG as a therapeutic option, addressing the gaps in evidence for surgical revascularization in HT patients.

Drug-eluting balloon: is it useful?

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease is one of the major issues in the medical world around the globe. The prevalence tends to increase. The use of coronary intervention is one of the ways often used in the management of coronary artery disease due to its satisfying result from earlier studies. Nowadays, there are several different techniques in coronary intervention: balloon vs stent.

MAIN BODY

The stent-based vascular interventions are increasingly being used over balloon-based coronary intervention. However, revascularization intervention using stent often have undesirable long-term effects compared to balloon. Besides, stent-based interventions are also considered more expensive, use more complicated techniques, and use more drug regimens. On the other hand, percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using balloons coated by anti-proliferation drugs have begun to be glimpsed by many interventionists. Studies have found many benefits that cannot be given by stent-based intervention therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Angioplasty using percutaneous coronary intervention techniques reveals satisfying result compared to conservative medical treatment. The indication and technique of percutaneous coronary intervention is still evolving until now. Currently, percutaneous coronary intervention using stent, either bare-metal stent or drug-eluting stent, is preferred by interventionist. Nevertheless, recent clinical trial favors the using of drug-eluting balloon for percutaneous coronary intervention in terms of both clinical outcome and complication in several scenarios.

Clinical characteristics and in hospital outcomes of heart transplant recipients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample

OBJECTIVES

Cardiac transplant patients are at increased risk of Coronary Allograft Vasculopathy which requires percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

We aim to determine national epidemiology describing trends, mortality, and morbidity risks in patients with heart transplant undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We used Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2002 to 2014 to identify adult hospitalizations with PCI using ICD 9 codes. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiac transplant status and complications were identified using validated ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. Endpoints were in-hospital mortality and peri-procedural complications. Propensity match analysis was performed to compare the end-points between DES and BMS.

RESULTS

Total 8,613,900 patients underwent PCI, of which 1,531(0.002%) patients had prior heart transplant status. Among these 1,531 PCIs, 311(20%) were due to AMI including 125(8%) due to STEMI. 74% of PCIs were done in males and 78% of the PCIs were performed in the 60-79 age group. Out of 1,380 stents placed, 1,090 were DES (79%) and 290 (21%) were BMS. Mortality was higher in the BMS versus DES (8.34% vs. 3.45%, p = .012), CONCLUSION: We concluded that majority of the population who underwent PCI were older males. DES was used more than BMS. The use of BMS is associated with increased mortality, cardiac complications and Acute Kidney Injury requiring dialysis compared with DES which likely is representative of preferential use of DES in these patient population.

Determination of the Frequency of Right and Left Internal Mammary Artery Embolization in Single Ventricle Patients: A Two-Center Study

Embolization of systemic to pulmonary artery collaterals to regulate pulmonary arterial flow or pressure of the cavopulmonary circulation in patients with single ventricle is a common practice. The relative incidence and impact of this practice on future interventions like coronary artery bypass grafting is poorly understood. This study aims to evaluate the frequency and implications of internal mammary artery (IMA) embolization in the single ventricle (SV) population. A retrospective chart review was performed of SV patients who underwent cardiac catheterization before and after Fontan procedure between February 2007 and 2017. Data were collected from two tertiary care centers in the Midwest. Of the 304 SV patients, 62 (20.4%) underwent embolization of one or more IMAs, whereas 242 (79.6%) did not. The rate of embolization of IMA was 40.5% in one center and 14.5% in the second center. Among patients who received IMA embolization, left internal mammary artery (LIMA) embolization was seen in 6 (9.7%) patients. Majority of patients underwent either right internal mammary artery (RIMA) embolization (n = 25; 40.3%) or RIMA and LIMA embolization (n = 27; 43.5%). IMA embolization in SV patients is common. Embolizing IMAs early in life will likely eliminate a valuable graft option for coronary artery bypass grafting should it be required in the future care of these patients. Multi-center, prospective, nation-wide studies are warranted to examine coronary artery disease in the SV population and true frequency of IMA embolization. Delineation of which IMAs were embolized is a necessary in surgical and cardiac intervention national data, such as Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database. All measures should be taken to preserve IMAs patency, if deemed feasible and safe.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in heart transplant recipients with coronary allograft vasculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1,520 patients

Background

Transplant coronary artery vasculopathy (TCAV) is the major cause of late allograft failure and death in heart transplant recipients. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) as compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the management of TCAV. Our secondary objective was to compare the use and outcomes of drug eluting stents (DES) as compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in this patient population.

Methods

Electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature examining PCI as compared to CABG for TCAV in heart transplant recipients. All identified articles were systematically assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results

Of the 4,989 studies identified, 29 studies were included. Among 1,520 patients who developed TCAV, 1,470 patients underwent PCI and 50 patients underwent CABG. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics and comorbidities among the PCI and CABG cohorts. Compared to the PCI cohort, patients who underwent CABG had a higher early mortality (CABG 36.4% vs. PCI 4.3%, P<0.001) and overall mortality (CABG 42.3% vs. PCI 21.4%, P=0.049). When comparing DES versus BMS cohorts, there were no significant differences in the rate of in-stent stenosis (DES 14.5% vs. BMS 24.4%, P=0.476), overall mortality (DES 17.4% vs. BMS 30.8%, P=0.302) or cardiac related mortality (DES 7.7% vs. BMS 21.8%, P=0.415).

Conclusions

CABG and PCI are both feasible modalities for revascularization in patients with TCAV where PCI is associated with lower mortality. There were no differences in outcomes among patients who underwent PCI with DES as compared to BMS. Potential bias may exist due to heterogeneity in available data. Further studies are needed to delineate evidence-based guidelines to tailor the appropriate therapy, CABG or PCI, to the appropriate patient.