Clinical Outcomes of Revascularization Strategies for Patients With MVD/LMCA Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Clinical outcomes of different revascularization approaches for patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As surgical techniques continue to evolve, the optimal approach for revascularizing multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a matter of ongoing debate. Accordingly, our objective was to compare and contrast various surgical techniques utilized in the management of multi-vessel CAD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to May 2022. Random-effects network meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome; target vessel revascularization (TVR), and secondary outcomes; mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, postoperative myocardial infarction, new-onset atrial fibrillation, stroke, new-onset dialysis, in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a stent, off-pump coronary bypass graft, on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (ONCABG), hybrid coronary revascularization, minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass, or robot-assisted coronary artery bypass (RCAB) surgeries.

RESULTS

A total of 8841 patients were included from 23 studies. The analysis showed that ONCABG had the highest freedom from TVR, with a mean (SD) absolute risk of 0.027 (0.029); although ONCABG was found to be superior to all other methods, it was only significantly better than first-generation stent PCI. While RCAB did not demonstrate significant superiority over other treatments, it showed a greater probability of preventing postoperative complications. Notably, no significant heterogeneity was calculated for any of the reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ONCABG shows a better rank probability compared to all other techniques for preventing TVR, while RCAB offers greater freedom from most postoperative complications. However, given the absence of randomized controlled trials, these results should be interpreted with caution.

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are widely used in the treatment of coronary heart disease, but the best revascularization method for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients is still controversial. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), together with CABG and PCI, have been proved to be feasible methods, but the long-term effect of HCR is not as clear as CABG.

Method

By October 2020, we retrieved articles from PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases. The main results are based on major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE).

Result

A total of 18 articles (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes of MACCE in the HCR group at perioperative, short-term (30 days to 1 year), medium-term (1 year to 5 years) and long-term (5 years and above) follow-up period were similar to those in the CABG group. The mortality rates of patients in perioperative, short-term and medium-term follow-up were similar to those in the CABG group, but lower than that in the CABG group at long-term follow-up (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.18–0.69, p = 0.002). The revascularization rate was higher in the HCR group during the perioperative period (OR = 3.50, 95% CI 2.07–5.94, p < 0.001), short-term (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.62–6.64, p < 0.001) and mid-term follow-up (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.64–4.92, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our results reveal that HCR is a safe and therapeutically effective alternative in treatments for MVD patients. It has not only less short-term adverse effect, but also better long-term effect, especially in death.

Hybrid coronary revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Aim: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) integrates coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous intervention in a planned revascularization strategy. This systematic review summarizes the state of this art of this technique. Methods: Major databases searched until October 2021. Results: The available literature on HCR includes three randomized trials, ten meta-analysis and 27 retrospective studies. The greatest benefits are observed in patients with low-to-intermediate risk and less complex coronary anatomy; highly complex disease and the presence of risk factors favored conventional CABG in terms of adverse events and survival. Conclusion: HCR is an interesting approach for multivessel CAD but should not be considered a 'one-size-fits-all' procedure. Further studies will specify the subset of patients likely to benefit most from this hybrid approach.

The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

The question of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains among the most important questions in the treatment of coronary artery disease. The leading North American and European societies largely agree on the current guidelines for the revascularization of unprotected left-main disease (ULMD) and multivessel disease (MVD) which are largely supported by the outcomes of several large randomized trials including SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL. While these trials are of the highest quality, currently available, they suffer several limitations, including the use of bare metal and/or first-generation drug-eluting stents in early trials and lack of updated surgical outcomes data. The objective of this review is to briefly discuss these key early trials, as well as explore contemporary studies, to provide insight on the current state of coronary revascularization. Evidence suggests that in ULMD and MVD, there are similar mortality rates for CABG and PCI but PCI is associated with fewer "early" strokes, whereas CABG is associated with fewer "late" strokes, myocardial infarctions, and lower need for repeat revascularization. Additionally, studies suggest that CABG remains superior to PCI in patients with intermediate/high SYNTAX scores and in MVD with concomitant proximal left anterior descending (pLAD) artery stenosis. Despite the preceding research and its basis for our current guidelines, there remains significant variation in care that has yet to be quantified. Emerging studies evaluating second-generation drug-eluting stents, specific lesion anatomy, and minimally invasive and hybrid approaches to CABG may lend itself to more individualized patient care.