Ten-year follow-up survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease

Anatomic vs. Ischemia-Driven Strategies for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS), the benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) added to optimal medical therapy (OMT) remains unclear. The indication to PCI may be driven either by angiographic evaluation or ischemia assessment, thus depicting different potential strategies which have not yet been thoroughly compared.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OMT versus PCI angio-guided or versus PCI non-invasive or invasive ischemia guided were identified and compared via network meta-analysis. Major adverse clinical events (MACE), as defined by each included trial, were the primary endpoint, while cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization the secondary ones.

RESULTS

18 studies, encompassing 17,512 patients, were included, with a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. PCI guided by ischemia defined either invasively or not was associated with a reduced risk of MACE compared with OMT alone. Furthermore, PCI guided by non-invasive assessment of ischemia was associated with a reduced risk of MI compared with OMT (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61 [95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.94). This strategy ranked best also in preventing CV death. Notably, iFR and FFR guided approaches showed the highest probability of performing best for reduction of subsequent revascularizations.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CCS, ischemia-guided PCI, either by invasive or non-invasive assessment, resulted in a reduced risk of MACE compared with OMT alone. The use of invasive or non-invasive tests influenced the benefit of ischemia-driven PCI: non-invasive tests significantly reduced risk of MI compared with OMT, while iFR or FFR showed the highest probability of reducing the need of subsequent revascularization.

2023 ACC/AHA Chronic Coronary Disease Guideline - An opportunity to reestablish coronary artery bypass recommendations

Coronary artery bypass (CABG) has evolved over the decades, supported by scientific evidence from robust studies. The downgrade of the recommendation for CABG in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease proposed by the 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization and the 2023 ACC/AHA Chronic Coronary Disease Guidelines has brought this discussion to the fore, with prestigious cardiothoracic surgery societies such as AATS and STS not supporting these recommendations. The purpose of this article is to broaden this discussion in light of published studies.

Left Anterior Descending Nonculprit Lesions and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In the COMPLETE (Complete vs Culprit-Only Revascularization to Treat Multi-Vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) trial, complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) reduced important outcomes compared with culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention. Whether clinical outcomes in STEMI patients with MVD are influenced by the presence of a left anterior descending (LAD) nonculprit lesion (NCL) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare: 1) cardiovascular outcomes among patients with an NCL in the proximal/mid-LAD to patients with an NCL in other locations; and 2) the benefit of NCL revascularization in patients with and without a proximal/mid-LAD NCL.

METHODS

The COMPLETE trial enrolled patients presenting with STEMI and MVD to angiography-guided complete revascularization vs a culprit lesion-only strategy. All coronary angiograms were evaluated in a central core laboratory. In this prespecified subanalysis, treatment effect according to proximal/mid-NCL location was determined for the coprimary outcomes of: 1) cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction; and 2) cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. Cox proportional hazards models were performed with an interaction term for treatment allocation and NCL location.

RESULTS

Of the 4,041 subjects in COMPLETE, 1,666 patients had a proximal/mid-LAD NCL (41.2%). The first coprimary outcome occurred in 8.5% (2.9%/y) of patients with a proximal/mid-LAD NCL vs 9.9% (3.4%/y) in those without (adjusted HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.67-1.03). Complete revascularization had a similar benefit in reducing the first coprimary outcome for patients with a proximal/mid-LAD NCL (7.7% vs 9.2%; HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.61-1.18) and those without (8.0% vs 11.9%; HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.50-0.86), with no differential treatment effect (interaction P = 0.235) CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD, those with a proximal/mid-LAD NCL had similar event rates to those without. The benefit of complete revascularization between the groups was similar, with no evidence of heterogeneity.

Long-Term Survival After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

BACKGROUND

Management guidelines for stable 3-vessel coronary artery disease have become a subject of debate. We aim to provide a benchmark for the survival of patients with normal ejection fraction, stable 3-vessel disease, and elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients with normal ejection fraction undergoing elective primary isolated CABG for 3-vessel disease in a diverse 11-center surgical network between 2008 and 2020 were analyzed. Survival data were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Death Index and compared with an age- and sex-matched United States population. Mixed-effects modeling with "hospital" as a random effect was used to evaluate factors associated with all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Of 4061 patients included in this analysis, 893 (22%) were women, and the median age was 68 years (interquartile range, 61-74 years). Patients with elective CABG surgery for 3-vessel disease and normal ejection fraction demonstrated improved survival compared with an age- and sex-matched United States population, with significantly increasing relative survival over time. Factors associated with mortality included age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; P < .001), male sex (HR, 1.32; P = .028), diabetes (HR, 1.4; P = .002), dialysis (HR, 2.41; P = .03), moderate or severe chronic lung disease (HR, 1.68; P < .001), and peripheral arterial disease (HR, 2.05; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with stable 3-vessel disease and normal ejection fraction who underwent elective CABG demonstrated improved survival compared with an age- and sex-matched United States population. With this benchmark, further research can better elucidate the relative role of surgery and medical therapy in this patient population.

Long-term Survival in Elderly Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Compared to the Age-matched General Population: A Meta-analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

BACKGROUND

 Coronary artery disease (CAD) limits life expectancy compared to the general population. Myocardial infarctions (MIs) are the primary cause of death. The incidence of MI increases progressively with age and most MI deaths occur in the population older than 70 years. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) may prevent the occurrence of new MIs by bypassing most CAD lesions, providing downstream "collateralization" to the diseased vessel, and consequently prolonging survival. We systematically assessed the survival-improving potential of CABG by comparing elderly CABG patients to the age-matched general population.

METHODS

 Three databases were assessed. The primary and single outcome was long-term all-cause mortality. Time-to-event data of the individual studies were extracted and reconstructed in an overall survival curve. As a sensitivity analysis, summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all individual studies were pooled and meta-analytically addressed. The control group was based on the age-matched general population of each individual study.

RESULTS

 From 1,352 records, 4 studies (4,045 patients) were included in the analysis. Elderly patients (>70 years) who underwent CABG had a significantly lower risk of death in the follow-up compared to the general age-matched population in the overall survival analysis (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.94; p < 0.001: mean follow-up was 7 years).

CONCLUSION

 Elderly patients who undergo CABG appear to have significantly better long-term survival compared to the age-matched general population. This advantage becomes visible after the first year and underscores the life-prolonging effect of bypass surgery, which may eliminate the expected reduction in life expectancy through CAD.

Association of Coronary Microvascular Rarefaction and Myocardial Fibrosis With Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

To evaluate, in a cohort study, whether coronary microvasculature and myocardial structure differ between people with and without coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed histological analysis of left ventricle free wall obtained at autopsy from 25 men and 23 women with ≥1 coronary artery with ≥75% area stenosis, and 25 men and 25 women without (no or minimal) CAD, matched for sex and age, who died suddenly from noncardiac causes. Decedents with myocardial infarction or other cardiac abnormality were excluded. Decedents with and without CAD had similar height and weight. Heart weight of decedents with CAD was higher than that of decedents without CAD (mean, 391 versus 364 g; mean difference, 27 g [95% CI, 0.3-54.0], P=0.048). Decedents with CAD had lower arteriole density (mean, 1.4 per mm2 versus 1.8 per mm2; mean difference, -0.4 per mm2 [95% CI, -0.6 to -0.2], P=0.0001), lower capillary length density (mean, 3164 versus 3701 mm/mm3; mean difference, -537 [95% CI, -787 to -286], P<0.0001), and higher total myocardial fibrosis (mean, 7.5% versus 5.7%; mean difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.0-2.5], P<0.0001), than decedents without CAD.

CONCLUSIONS

CAD was associated with coronary microvascular rarefaction and increased myocardial fibrosis. The association of CAD with coronary microvascular rarefaction and increased myocardial fibrosis may contribute to the increased risks of death, myocardial infarction and heart failure that accompany CAD, and may attenuate the impact of percutaneous coronary intervention on cardiovascular risk in people with stable angina.

Octopus follow-up: 20 year prognosis in patients randomized to on-pump CABG, off-pump CABG or PCI

BACKGROUND

The very long-term outcomes of off-pump versus on-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) are largely unclear. We linked 20-years outcomes of two randomized trials to evaluate re-intervention and mortality outcomes for on-pump CABG, off-pump CABG and PCI.

METHODS

A data linkage project was performed using data as registered within the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR), Statistics Netherlands (CBS) and the Octopus trials. Between 1998 and 2000, these trials randomized patients with coronary artery disease to on-pump versus off-pump CABG (OctoPump trial), or to PCI versus off-pump CABG (OctoStent trial). With data linkage, the original 5 years follow-up time for clinical events was extended to 20 years, including mortality and coronary reinterventions.

RESULTS

After 20 years, in the OctoPump trial all-cause mortality was 50.0% after on-pump, and 46.5% after off-pump CABG. There was no difference in the combined outcome of mortality and re-interventions (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59-1.12). In the OctoStent trial, all-cause mortality was 56.7% after PCI and 52.5% after off-pump CABG. There was no difference in the combined outcome of mortality and re-interventions (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57-1.04). Off-pump CABG patients underwent less re-interventions than PCI patients (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.80).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed no differences in 20-year survival between patients randomized to on-pump versus off-pump CABG, or to PCI versus off-pump-CABG. However, off-pump CABG patients underwent less re-interventions than PCI patients.

Percutaneous coronary intervention plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in chronic coronary syndrome: a propensity score-matched analysis from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently used for patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). However, the role of PCI beyond symptom relief in CCS remains controversial. The objective of this study was to determine whether PCI is associated with better outcomes, compared with medical therapy (MT) alone.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry, we included all patients with CCS undergoing coronary angiography in Sweden between 2010 and 2020. Two groups were formed based on treatment strategy: PCI+MT versus MT alone. One-to-one propensity score (PS) matching was used to address confounding. Outcome was assessed using matched win ratio analysis, a statistical method that ranks the components of the composite by clinical importance. The primary outcome was net adverse clinical event (NACE) within 5 years. In the win ratio analysis, the components of NACE were ranked as follows: (1) all-cause mortality, (2) myocardial infarction (MI), (3) bleeding and (4) urgent revascularisation. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of NACE, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiovascular mortality.

RESULTS

After PS matching, two groups of 7220 patients each were formed. The hierarchical outcome analysis of NACE and MACE showed that PCI was associated with improved outcome (matched win ratio: 1.28 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.36, p<0.001) and matched win ratio: 1.38 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.48, p<0.001), respectively). The use of PCI was associated with higher win ratio of MI (matched win ratio: 1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.28, p=0.008), urgent revascularisation (matched win ratio: 1.85, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.03, p<0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (matched win ratio: 1.15, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.34, p=0.044). No difference in win ratio was observed for all-cause mortality or bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, which sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with CCS using a hierarchical approach, patients selected for revascularisation with PCI experienced better outcome compared with MT alone.

Outcomes with revascularisation versus conservative management of participants with 3-vessel coronary artery disease in the ISCHEMIA trial

BACKGROUND

Whether revascularisation (REV) improves outcomes in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease (3V-CAD) is uncertain.

AIMS

Our objective was to evaluate outcomes with REV (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) versus medical therapy in patients with 3V-CAD.

METHODS

ISCHEMIA participants with 3V-CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography without prior CABG were included. Outcomes following initial invasive management (INV) with REV (PCI or CABG) versus initial conservative management (CON) with medical therapy alone were evaluated. Regression modelling was used to estimate the outcomes if all participants were to undergo prompt REV versus those assigned to CON. Outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction (MI), death, CV death, and quality of life. Bayesian posterior probability for benefit (Pr [benefit]) for 1 percentage point lower 4-year rates with REV versus CON were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 1,236 participants with 3V-CAD (612 INV/624 CON), REV was associated with lower 4-year CV death/MI (adjusted 4-year difference: -4.4, 95% credible interval [CrI] -8.7 to -0.3 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=94.8%) when compared with CON, with similar results for PCI versus CON (-5.8, 95% CrI: -10.8 to -0.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=96.4%) and CABG versus CON (-3.7, 95% CrI: -8.8 to 1.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=84.7%). Adjusted 4-year REV versus CON differences were as follows: death -1.2 (95% CrI: -4.7 to 2.2) percentage points, CV death -2.3 (95% CrI: -5.5 to 0.8) percentage points, with similar results for PCI and for CABG. The Pr (benefit) for death with REV (PCI or CABG) versus CON was 49-63%. The adjusted 12-month Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 summary score differences favoured REV: REV versus CON 4.6 (95% CrI: 2.7-6.4) percentage points; PCI versus CON 3.6 (95% CrI: 1.2-5.8) percentage points and CABG versus CON 4.3 (95% CrI: 1.5-6.9) percentage points with high Pr (benefit).

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with 3V-CAD, REV (either PCI or CABG) was associated with a lower 4-year CV death/MI rate and improved quality of life, with similar results for PCI versus CON and CABG versus CON. The differences in all-cause mortality between REV and CON were small with wide confidence intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01471522).

Utility of coronary revascularization in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Revascularization in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction has been a subject of ongoing uncertainty and conflicting results. This is further complicated by factors including viability, severity of LV dysfunction, and method of revascularization using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the association of coronary revascularization with outcomes in patients with ischemic LV dysfunction.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted for studies reporting on cardiovascular outcomes after revascularization compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with ischemic LV dysfunction.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 10,110 participants met inclusion criteria. Revascularization was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality and CV mortality compared to OMT. The association was statistically significant regardless of severity of LV dysfunction or method of revascularization. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that revascularization was significantly associated with lower all-cause and CV mortality compared to OMT for patients with viable myocardium and mixed cohorts with variable viability, but not patients without viable myocardium. Revascularization was not associated with a significant difference in risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared to OMT.

CONCLUSIONS

Revascularization in patients with ischemic LV dysfunction is associated with lower risk of all-cause and CV mortality independent of severity of LV dysfunction or method of revascularization. Revascularization is not associated with lower risk of mortality in patients without evidence of viable myocardium and is not associated with lower risk of AMI or HF hospitalization.

An updated meta-analysis of optimal medical therapy with or without invasive therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of optimal medical therapy (OMT) with or without revascularization therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared OMT with or without revascularization therapy for SCAD patients.

METHODS

Studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials from January 1, 2005, to December 30, 2023. The main efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause death, myocadiac infarction, revascularization, and cerebrovascular accident. Results were pooled using random effects model and fixed effects model and are presented as odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 12,790 participants were included. The arm of OMT with revascularization compared with OMT alone was associated with decreased risks for MACCE (OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.38-0.80], I²=93%, P = 0.002), CV death (OR 0.84 [95% CI 0.73-0.97], I²=36%, P = 0.02), revascularization (OR 0.32 [95% CI 0.20-0.50], I²=92%, P < 0.001), and MI (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.76-0.96], I²=45%, P = 0.007). While there was no significant difference between OMT with revascularization and OMT alone in the odds of all-cause death (OR 0.94 [95% CI 0.84-1.05], I²=0%, P = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

The current updated meta-analysis of 10 RCTs shows that in patients with SCAD, OMT with revascularization would reduce the risk for MACCE, cardiovascular death, and MI. However, the invasive strategy does not decrease the risks for all-cause mortality when comparing with OMT alone.

Long-Term Outcomes of Sex Differences in Three-Vessel Coronary Disease with Different Treatment Strategies: A Large Cohort Study

Aim

The information assessing sex differences in outcomes of patients with three-vessel coronary disease (TVD) after different treatment strategies is sparse. This study aimed to investigate long-term outcomes of TVD among women compared with men after medical therapy (MT) alone, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG).

Methods

Consecutive 8943 patients with TVD were enrolled. Associations between sex and all-cause death and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) were assessed.

Results

Of the 8943 patients, 1821 (20.4%) were women. During a median follow-up of 6.6 years, women had comparable incidences of all-cause death (16.6% vs. 14.9%, P = 0.079) and MACCE (27.2% vs. 26.1%, P = 0.320) to men. After multivariable analysis, women showed lower adjusted risks of all-cause death (HR: 0.777; P = 0.001) and MACCE (HR: 0.870; P = 0.016) than men in the entire cohort. Subgroup analysis revealed that the less all-cause death risk of women relative to men was significant in PCI (HR: 0.702; P = 0.009), and CABG groups (HR: 0.708; P = 0.047), but not in MT alone group. Lower MACCE risk for women vs. men was significant only in PCI group (HR: 0.821; P = 0.037). However, no significant interaction between sex and three strategies was observed for all-cause death (P for interaction = 0.312) or MACCE (P for interaction = 0.228).

Conclusions

The cardiovascular prognosis of TVD female patients is better than that of men, which has no interaction with the treatment strategies received (MT alone, PCI, or CABG).

Clinical impact of coronary revascularization over medical treatment in chronic coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide a quantitative comparison between myocardial revascularization (REVASC) and optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).

METHODS

Pertinent studies were searched for in PubMed/Medline until 12/03/2023. Randomized controlled trials that compare REVASC to OMT reporting clinical outcomes were selected according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death. Two investigators independently assessed the study quality and extracted data.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight randomized controlled studies (RCTs) including 20692 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The rate of cardiovascular mortality was significantly lower among patients treated with myocardial revascularization [risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.90]. Age (p = 0.03), multivessel disease (p < 0.001), and follow-up duration (p = 0.001) were significant moderators of CV mortality. Subgroup analyses showed a larger benefit in patients treated with drug-eluting stents and those without chronic total occlusion. Among secondary outcomes, myocardial infarction was less frequent in the REVASC group (RR = 0.74; p < 0.001), while no significant difference was found for all-cause mortality (p = 0.09) nor stroke (p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis showed lower rates of CV mortality and myocardial infarction in CCS patients treated with myocardial revascularization compared to OMT. This benefit was larger with increasing follow-up duration. Personalized treatment based on patient characteristics and lesion complexity may optimize clinical outcomes in patients with CCS.

Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Sixteen Years of Single-Center Experience

Background: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of death globally. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB), using a small left anterior thoracotomy, aims to provide a less invasive alternative to traditional procedures, potentially improving patient outcomes with reduced recovery times. Methods: This retrospective, non-randomized study analyzed 310 patients who underwent MIDCAB between July 1999 and April 2022. Data were collected on demographics, clinical characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes, and follow-up mortality and morbidity. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS, with survival curves generated via the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The cohort had a mean age of 63.3 ± 10.9 years, with 30.6% females. The majority of surgeries were elective (76.1%), with an average operating time of 129.7 ± 35.3 min. The median rate of intraoperative blood transfusions was 0.0 (CI 0.0-2.0) Units. The mean in-hospital stay was 8.7 ± 5.5 days, and the median ICU stay was just one day. Early postoperative complications were minimal, with a 0.64% in-hospital mortality rate. The 6-month and 1-year mortalities were 0.97%, with a 10-year survival rate of 94.3%. There were two cases of perioperative myocardial infarction and no instances of stroke or new onset dialysis. Conclusions: The MIDCAB approach demonstrates significant benefits in terms of patient recovery and long-term outcomes, offering a viable and effective alternative for patients suitable for less invasive procedures. Our results suggest that MIDCAB is a safe option with favorable survival rates, justifying its consideration in high-volume centers focused on minimally invasive techniques.

Predictive Score for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia Based on Cardiovascular and Colorectal Cancer Risk Factors

Background and Aims: Cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer (CRC) are significant health problems and share some risk factors. The aim of our study was to develop and validate a predictive score for advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRN) based on risk factors for cardiovascular disease and CRC. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study comprising a derivation cohort and an external validation cohort of 1049 and 308 patients, respectively. A prediction score for advanced CRN (CRNAS: Colorectal Neoplasia Advanced Score) was developed from a logistic regression model, comprising sex, age, first-degree family history for CRC, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, body mass index, diabetes, smoking, and antihypertensive treatment. Other cardiovascular risk scores (Framingham-Wilson, REGICOR, SCORE, and FRESCO) were also used to predict the risk of advanced CRN. The discriminatory capacity of each score was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC). Results: CRN were found in 379 subjects from the derivation cohort (36%), including 228 patients (22%) with an advanced CRN. Male sex, age, diabetes, and smoking were identified as independent risk factors for advanced CRN. The newly created score (CRNAS) showed an AUC of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.64-0.73) for advanced CRN, which was better than cardiovascular risk scores (p < 0.001). In the validation cohort, the AUC of CRNAS for advanced CRN was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57-0.76). Conclusions: The newly validated CRNAS has a better discriminatory capacity to predict advanced CRN than cardiovascular scores. It may be useful for selecting candidates for screening colonoscopy, especially in those with cardiovascular risk factors.

Coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease: An individual patient data pooled meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

It is unclear whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improves survival compared with medical therapy (MT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this analysis was to perform an individual-patient data-pooled meta-analysis of contemporary randomized controlled trials that compared CABG and MT in patients with stable CAD.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in January 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials enrolling adult patients with stable CAD, randomized to CABG or MT. Only trials using at least aspirin, beta-blockers, and statins in the MT arm were included. Individual patient data were obtained from all eligible studies and pooled. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Four trials involving 2523 patients (1261 CABG; 1262 MT) were included with a median follow-up of 5.6 (4.0-9.2) years. CABG was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality within 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 4.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-11.83) but subsequent reduction in the long-term risk of death (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89). As such, the cumulative 10-year mortality rate was lower in patients treated with CABG compared with MT (45.1% vs 51.7%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85). Age and race were significant treatment effect modifier (interaction P = .003 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stable CAD, initial allocation to CABG was associated with greater periprocedural risk of death but improved long-term survival compared with MT. The survival advantage for CABG became significant after the fourth postoperative year and was particularly pronounced in younger and non-White patients.

Five-year outcomes in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing surgery or percutaneous intervention

The outcomes from real-life clinical studies regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) are still poorly investigated. In this retrospective study we assessed 5-year outcomes: primary, secondary endpoints and quality of life of 1035 individuals with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) treated either with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-356 patients or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-679 patients according to the recommendation of a local Heart Team (HT). At 5 years no significant difference in overall mortality and rates of myocardial infarctions (MI) were observed between CABG and PCI cohorts (11.0% vs. 13.4% for PCI, P = 0.27 and 9.6% vs. 12.8% for PCI, P = 0.12, respectively). The incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), mainly driven by increased rates of repeat revascularization (RR) were higher in PCI-cohort than in CABG-group (56.1% vs. 40.4%, P < 0.01 and 26.8% vs. 12.6%, P < 0.01, respectively), while CABG-patients experienced stroke more often (7.3% vs. 3.1% for PCI, P < 0.01). In real-life practice with long-term follow-up, none of the two revascularization modalities implemented following HT decisions showed overwhelming superiority: occurrence of death and MI were similar, rates of RR favoured CABG, while incidence of strokes advocated PCI.

Treatment Strategies for Chronic Coronary Heart Disease with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction or Preserved Ejection Fraction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In this meta-analysis, we examine the advantages of invasive strategies for patients diagnosed with chronic coronary heart disease (CHD) and preserved left ventricular (LV) function, as well as those with significant LV systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction (EF) < 45%).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify all randomized trials directly comparing invasive strategies with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients diagnosed with chronic CHD. Data from these trials were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was the all-cause mortality, while secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization. This study was designed to assess the benefits of both invasive strategies and OMT in patients with preserved LV function and in those with LV systolic dysfunction. The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using the Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).

RESULTS

Twelve randomized studies enrolling 13,912 patients were included in the final analysis. Among the patients with chronic CHD and preserved LV systolic function, revascularization did not demonstrate a reduction in all-cause mortality (8.52% vs. 8.45%, p = 0.45), CV death (3.41% vs. 3.62%, p = 0.08), or the incidence of MI (9.88% vs. 10.49%, p = 0.47). However, the need for unplanned myocardial revascularization was significantly lower in the group following the initial invasive approach compared to patients undergoing OMT (14.75% vs. 25.72%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the invasive strategy emerged as the preferred treatment modality for patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction. This approach demonstrated lower rates of all-cause mortality (40.61% vs. 46.52%, p = 0.004), CV death (28.75% vs. 35.82%, p = 0.0004), and MI (8.19% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals diagnosed with chronic CHD and preserved LV EF, the initial invasive approach did not demonstrate a clinical advantage over OMT. Conversely, in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction, myocardial revascularization was found to reduce the risks of CV events and enhance the overall outcomes. These findings hold significant clinical relevance for optimizing treatment strategies in patients with chronic CHD, contingent upon myocardial contractility status.

Contemporary Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting vs Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Interpretation of recent alterations to the guideline priority of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel disease contests historical data and practice. To reevaluate contemporary outcomes, a large contemporary analysis was conducted comparing CABG with multivessel PCI among Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

The United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database was evaluated all beneficiaries with acute coronary syndrome undergoing isolated CABG or multivessel PCI (2018-2020). Risk adjustment was performed using multilevel regression analysis, Cox proportional hazards time to event models, and inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity scores.

RESULTS

A total of 104,127 beneficiaries were identified undergoing CABG (n = 51,389) or multivessel PCI (n = 52,738). Before risk adjustment, compared with PCI, CABG patients were associated with younger age (72.9 vs 75.2 years, P < .001), higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (5.0 vs 4.2, P < .001), more diabetes (48.5% vs 42.2%, P < .001), higher cost ($54,154 vs $33,484, P < .001), and longer length of stay (11.9 vs 5.8 days, P < .001). After inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score adjustment, compared with PCI, CABG was associated with lower hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.74; P < .001), fewer hospital readmissions at 3 years (odds ratio, 0.85; P < .001), fewer coronary reinterventions (hazard ratio, 0.37; P < .001), and improved 3-year survival (hazard ratio, 0.51; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary real-world data from Medicare patients with multivessel disease reveal that CABG outcomes were superior to PCI, providing important longitudinal data to guide patient care and policy development.

Age and outcomes following personalized antiplatelet therapy in chronic coronary syndrome patients: a post hoc analysis of the randomized PATH-PCI trial

It is particularly important to establish more effective and safer antiplatelet treatment strategies according to age. The present subanalysis of the PATH-PCI trial was to determine the safety and efficacy of any dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) strategy in different age groups. We randomized 2285 chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) into a standard group or a personalized group from December 2016 to February 2018. The personalized group received personalized antiplatelet therapy (PAT) based on a novel platelet function test (PFT). The standard group received standard antiplatelet therapy (SAT). Then, all patients were divided according to age (under the age of 65 years and aged 65 years or over) to investigate the association and interaction of age on clinical outcomes at 180 days. In the patients under the age of 65 years, the incidence of NACEs was decreased in the personalized group compared to the standard group (5.1% vs. 8.8%, HR: 0.603, 95% CI: 0.409-0.888, P = .010). The rates of MACCEs (3.3% vs. 7.7%, HR: 0.450, 95% CI: 0.285-0.712, P = .001), MACEs (2.2% vs. 5.4%, HR: 0.423, 95% CI: 0.243-0.738, P = .002) also decreased. We did not find a significant difference in bleeding between the groups. In the patients aged 65 years or over, no difference in the primary endpoint was found (4.9% vs. 4.2%, P = .702), and comparable rates of survival were observed with the two strategies (all Ps > 0.05). The present study shows that PAT according to PFT was comparable to SAT at the 180-day follow-up for both ischemic and bleeding endpoints in CCS patients aged 65 years or over who underwent PCI. In patients under the age of 65 years, PAT can reduce ischemic events but does not increase bleeding, and it is an effective and safe treatment strategy. It may be necessary for young CCS patients after PCI to undergo PAT early after PCI.

The ISCHEMIA trial revisited: setting the record straight on the benefits of coronary bypass surgery and the misinterpretation of a landmark trial

OBJECTIVES

The ISCHEMIA trial is a landmark study that has been the subject of heated debate within the cardiovascular community. In this analysis of the ISCHEMIA trial, we aim to set the record straight on the benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and the misinterpretation of this landmark trial. We sought to clarify and reorient this misinterpretation.

METHODS

We herein analyse the ISCHEMIA trial in detail and describe how its misinterpretation has led to an erroneous guideline recommendation downgrading for prognosis-altering surgical therapy in these at-risk patients.

RESULTS

The interim ISCHEMIA trial findings align with previous evidence where CABG reduces the long-term risks of myocardial infarction and mortality in advanced coronary artery disease. The trial outcomes of a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular mortality and a higher rate of non-cardiovascular mortality with the invasive strategy are explained according to landmark evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The ISCHEMIA trial findings are aligned with previous evidence and should not be used to downgrade recommendations in recent guidelines for the indisputable benefits of CABG.

Intracoronary Brachytherapy for Restenosis: 20 Years of Follow-Up

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Intracoronary brachytherapy (ICB) has mainly been used to treat in-stent restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention and was virtually abandoned about 20 years ago. However, patients treated with this strategy are still alive and some teams continue to perform this therapy. We aimed to investigate the very long-term clinical outcome of patients treated with ICB.

METHODS/MATERIALS

A total of 173 consecutive patients who had been treated with ICB at a large tertiary referral centre between 1998 and 2003 were included. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were as follows: occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, defined as all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization), cardiac death, and presence of angina at the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age at the time of ICB was 64 ± 10 years and 77 % were male. Restenosis (bare metal stent vs. balloon angioplasty) was the only indication for ICB. Unstable angina was present in 34 % of the patients. Follow-up was available for 166 patients. After a mean follow-up of 20 ± 1.3 years, 66 % of the patients had died (including 74 patients (67 %) with cardiac death). Cumulative MACE rate at 20 years was 96 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Very long-term follow-up of patients with in-stent restenosis treated with ICB confirmed a high all-cause mortality rate mainly due to cardiac causes and MACEs.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Effects of Elective Coronary Revascularization vs Medical Therapy Alone on Noncardiac Mortality: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists whether coronary revascularization plus medical therapy (MT) is associated with an increase in noncardiac mortality in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) when compared with MT alone, particularly following recent data from the ISCHEMIA-EXTEND (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial.

OBJECTIVES

This study conducted a large-scale meta-analysis of trials comparing elective coronary revascularization plus MT vs MT alone in patients with CCS to determine whether revascularization has a differential impact on noncardiac mortality at the longest follow-up.

METHODS

We searched for randomized trials comparing revascularization plus MT vs MT alone in patients with CCS. Treatment effects were measured by rate ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs, using random-effects models. Noncardiac mortality was the prespecified endpoint. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022380664).

RESULTS

Eighteen trials were included involving 16,908 patients randomized to either revascularization plus MT (n = 8,665) or to MT alone (n = 8,243). No significant differences were detected in noncardiac mortality between the assigned treatment groups (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.94-1.26; P = 0.26), with absent heterogeneity (I² = 0%). Results were consistent without the ISCHEMIA trial (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84-1.18; P = 0.97). By meta-regression, follow-up duration did not affect noncardiac death rates with revascularization plus MT vs MT alone (P = 0.52). Trial sequential analysis confirmed the reliability of meta-analysis, with the cumulative Z-curve of trial evidence within the nonsignificance area and reaching futility boundaries. Bayesian meta-analysis findings were consistent with the standard approach (RR: 1.08; 95% credible interval: 0.90-1.31).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CCS, noncardiac mortality in late follow-up was similar for revascularization plus MT compared with MT alone.

High Non-Cardiac Death Incidence Should Be a Limitation of Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation? Insights from Recent Randomized Data

Despite the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly improved the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), particularly in a high-risk group of patients, the gap between PCI with his competitor’s coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and/or optimal medical treatment alone was not reduced. In this revision, we highlighted the fact that in recent years landmark randomized studies reported at mid and long-term follow-ups a high incidence of non-cardiac death, cancer incidence, or both in the DES group of patients. The overall incidence of non-cardiac death was significantly higher in the DES vs. the comparator arm: 5.5% and 3.8%, respectively, p = 0.000018, and non-cardiac death appears to be more divergent between DES vs. the comparator at the extended follow-up to expenses of the last one. One of these trials reported five times greater cancer incidence in the DES arm at late follow-up, 5% vs. 0.7% p < 0.0018. We review the potential reason for these unexpected findings, although we can discard that DES biology could be involved in it. Until all these issues are resolved, we propose that DES implantation should be tailored accorded patient age, life expectancy, and lesion complexity.

Management of Stable Angina in the Older Adult Population

As society ages, the number of older adults with stable ischemic heart disease continues to rise. Older adults exhibit the greatest morbidity and mortality from stable angina. Furthermore, they suffer a higher burden of comorbidity and adverse events from treatment than younger patients. Given that older adults were excluded or underrepresented in most randomized controlled trials of stable ischemic heart disease, evidence for management is limited and hinges on subgroup analyses of trials and observational studies. This review aims to elucidate the current definitions of aging, assess the overall burden and clinical presentations of stable ischemic heart disease in older patients, weigh the available evidence for guideline-recommended treatment options including medical therapy and revascularization, and propose a framework for synthesizing complex treatment decisions in older adults with stable angina. Due to evolving goals of care in older patients, it is paramount to readdress the patient's priorities and preferences when deciding on treatment. Ultimately, the management of stable angina in older adults will need to be informed by dedicated studies in representative populations emphasizing patient-centered end points and person-centered decision-making.

Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How

Background Myocardial revascularization has been advocated to improve myocardial function and prognosis in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). We discuss the evidence for revascularization in patients with ICM and the role of ischemia and viability detection in guiding treatment. Methods and Results We searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the prognostic impact of revascularization in ICM and the value of viability imaging for patient management. Out of 1397 publications, 4 randomized controlled trials were included, enrolling 2480 patients. Three trials (HEART [Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial], STICH [Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure], and REVIVED [REVascularization for Ischemic VEntricular Dysfunction]-BCIS2) randomized patients to revascularization or optimal medical therapy. HEART was stopped prematurely without showing any significant difference between treatment strategies. STICH showed a 16% lower mortality with bypass surgery compared with optimal medical therapy at a median follow-up of 9.8 years. However, neither the presence/extent of left ventricle viability nor ischemia interacted with treatment outcomes. REVIVED-BCIS2 showed no difference in the primary end point between percutaneous revascularization or optimal medical therapy. PARR-2 (Positron Emission Tomography and Recovery Following Revascularization) randomized patients to imaging-guided revascularization versus standard care, with neutral results overall. Information regarding the consistency of patient management with viability testing results was available in ≈65% of patients (n=1623). No difference in survival was revealed according to adherence or no adherence to viability imaging. Conclusions In ICM, the largest randomized controlled trial, STICH, suggests that surgical revascularization improves patients' prognosis at long-term follow-up, whereas evidence supports no benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention. Data from randomized controlled trials do not support myocardial ischemia or viability testing for treatment guidance. We propose an algorithm for the workup of patients with ICM considering clinical presentation, imaging results, and surgical risk.

Ten-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel or left main coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Short-term and long-term comparative outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery (MVCA) or left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease are highly debated.

GOALS

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the difference between PCI and CABG for the treatment of patients with MVCA or LMCA in long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Literatures were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2021, including RCTs and observational studies (OSs). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 10 years follow-up, and the secondary outcomes included cardiac mortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 5 RCTs reporting data from 3013 participants and 4 OSs of 5608 participants were included for analysis. There was no significant difference between PCI and CABG in all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.19]), whereas PCI was associated with higher cardiac mortality (OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.90]) and repeated revascularization rate comparing to CABG (OR 1.77 [95% CI 1.08 to 2.89]; I² = 94.61%). The difference between PCI and CABG in repeated revascularization in either RCTs or OSs, in myocardial infarction in either RCTs or OSs were not significant. In OSs, stroke rate in PCI group was lower than those in CABG, but not in RCTs. There was a significant increase of stroke rate in CABG comparing to PCI (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.80]; I² = 0.00%). No significant difference between PCI and CABG in myocardial infarction was not observed (OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.64 to 1.31]; I² = 57.84%).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from our study and prior studies suggested the superiority of CABG over PCI in improving 5- but not 10-year survival among patients with MVCA. In the contrast, there was no significant difference between CABG and PCI for treating patients with LMCA in either 5- or 10-year survival rate. More long-term trials are needed to better define differences of outcome between 2 techniques.

Difference in spontaneous myocardial infarction and mortality in percutaneous versus surgical revascularization trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

It has been hypothesized that the survival benefit of coronary artery bypass (CABG) compared with percutaneous interventions (PCI) may be associated with the reduction in spontaneous myocardial infarction (SMI) achieved by surgery. This, however, has not been formally investigated. The present meta-analysis aims to evaluate the association between the difference in SMI and in survival in PCI versus CABG randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to identify all RCTs comparing PCI with CABG for the treatment of coronary artery disease and reporting SMI outcomes. Generic inverse variance method was used to pool outcomes as natural logarithms of the incident rate ratios across studies. Subgroup analysis and interaction test were used to compare the difference of the primary outcome among trials that did and did not report a significant reduction in SMI- in the patients treated by CABG. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcome was SMI.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. A statistically significant difference in SMI in favor of CABG was found in 7 of the included trials (35%). Overall, PCI was associated with significantly greater all-cause mortality (incident rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.28). At subgroup analysis, a significant difference in survival in favor of CABG was seen only in trials that reported a significant reduction in SMI in the surgical arm (P for interaction 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In the published PCI versus CABG trials, the reduction in all-cause mortality in the surgical arm is associated with the protective effect of CABG against SMI.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on myocardial revascularisation

Cardiologists in the UK predominantly use the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and European Society of Cardiology guidelines to help guide decision-making. This article will appraise the current recommendations from NICE regarding myocardial revascularisation and compare them with other major international guidelines. While there are many similarities, subtle differences exist. These differences arise in part due to the evidence base at time of publication, as well as from the different healthcare systems that they are designed for, and from the cost-effectiveness models that dominate the methodology used by NICE. The clinical implications of the differences between the international guidelines will be analysed.

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing.

METHODS

ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

Changes in Internal Thoracic Artery Blood Flow According to the Degree of Stenosis of the Anterior Descending Branch of the Left Coronary Artery

PURPOSE

Computational fluid dynamics has enabled the evaluation of coronary flow reserve. The purpose of this study was to clarify the hemodynamic variation and reserve potential of the left internal thoracic artery (LITA).

METHODS

Four patients were selected on the basis of various native coronary stenosis patterns and graft design. The wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index were measured, and one patient was selected. Next, we created three hypothetical lesions with 75%, 90%, and 99% stenosis in front of the graft anastomosis, and compared the changes in LITA blood flow and coronary flow distribution.

RESULTS

In the 75% to 90% stenosis model, blood flow was significantly higher in the native coronary flow proximal to the coronary artery bypass anastomosis regardless of time phase. In the 99% stenosis model, blood flow from the LITA was significantly dominant compared to native coronary flow at the proximal site of anastomosis. The range of LITA flow variability was the largest at 99% stenosis, with a difference of 70 ml/min.

CONCLUSION

The 99% stenosis model showed the highest LITA flow. The range of LITA flow variability is large, suggesting that it may vary according to the rate of native coronary stenosis.

Comparing CABG and PCI across the globe based on current regional registry evidence

There is an ongoing debate whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) provide better results for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to evaluate the impact of CABG or PCI on long-term survival based on local reports from different regions in the world. We systematically searched MEDLINE selecting studies that compared outcomes for CABG or PCI as a treatment for CAD in the last 10 years. Reports without all-cause mortality, multi-national cohorts, hybrid revascularization populations were excluded. Qualifying studies were statistically compared, and their geographic location visualized on a world map. From 5126 studies, one randomized and twenty-two observational studies (19 risk-adjusted) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up was 4.7 ± 7 years and 18 different countries were included. In 17 studies, CABG was associated with better survival during follow-up, six studies showed no significant difference, and no study favored PCI. Periprocedural mortality was not different in seven, lower with PCI in one, lower with CABG in three and not reported in 12 studies. In regional registry-type comparisons, CABG is associated with better long-term survival compared to PCI in most regions of the world without evidence for higher periprocedural mortality.

Sex differences in mortality after first time, isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Reports of sex-specific differences in mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABGS) are contradictory. The review aim was to determine whether CABGS is differentially efficacious than alternative procedures by sex, on short- and longer-term mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Inclusion criteria: English language, randomized controlled trials from 2010, comparing isolated CABGS to alternative revascularization. Analyses were included Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects modelling, risk of bias (Cochrane RoB2), and quality assessment (CONSORT). PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42020181673. The search yielded 4459 citations, and full-text review of 29 articles revealed nine studies for inclusion with variable time to follow-up. Risk of mortality for women was similar in pooled analyses [risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.05, P = 0.26] but higher in sensitivity analyses excluding 'high risk' patients (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.48, P = 0.04). At 30 days and 10 years, in contrast to men, women had an 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66-1.02, P = 0.08) and 19% (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P = 0.01) mortality risk reduction. At 1-2 years women had a 7% (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.69-1.64, P = 0.77), and at 2-5 years a 25% increase in risk of mortality compared with men (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.53, P = 0.03). Women were increasingly under-represented over time comprising 41% (30 days) to 16.7% (10 years) of the pooled population.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis revealed inconsistent sex-specific differences in mortality after CABGS. Trials with sex-specific stratification are required to ensure appropriate sex-differentiated treatments for revascularization.

Shared decision-making in the realm of uncertainty: The example of coronary artery disease through an EBM and complexity science lens

Patients look to their clinicians for explanations and treatments that achieve predictable cures with certainty. Clinicians usually respond accordingly. Acknowledging uncertainty, while necessary, is difficult, anxiety-provoking and at times overwhelming for patients and clinicians alike. We here present three case studies to illustrate the uncertainties of managing patients with potentially life-threatening illnesses. Research aims to provide answers to clinical problems. But, conducting research almost inevitably entails a reduction of real-world complexities. Research ultimately can only provide 'partial or in general answers' mostly revealing new questions. Due to the complexity of clinical care, research cannot really achieve certainty and predictability for an individual within his specific living context and values. In an unavoidably uncertain environment, instead of oversimplifying, clinicians like patients-as far as possible-ought to better embrace a complexity thinking frame. This provides a deeper understanding how living bodies function as-a-whole within their living contexts. Uncertainty and unpredictability, being inherent elements of complexity thinking, cannot be overcome. However, it may be made easier to cope with uncertainty by at least adopting the thinking in probabilities for benefits and harms of patient related outcomes as introduced in Sackett's Evidence-Based Medicine framework. Through the lenses of evidence-based medicine and complexity sciences this paper critically explores the clinical management of three patients diagnosed as having coronary artery disease. They all received the same treatment even though they presented with very different clinical complaints arising from different disease manifestations. Looking at these case studies the authors reflect on the reasons behind this astonishing, but widely seen medical behaviour of 'one size fits all'. They critically reflect the importance of research and evidence in view of a person-centred solution.

Angina in 2022: Current Perspectives

Angina is the main symptom of ischemic heart disease; mirroring a mismatch between oxygen supply and demand. Epicardial coronary stenoses are only responsible for nearly half of the patients presenting with angina; whereas in several cases; symptoms may underlie coronary vasomotor disorders; such as microvascular dysfunction or epicardial spasm. Various medications have been proven to improve the prognosis and quality of life; representing the treatment of choice in stable angina and leaving revascularization only in particular coronary anatomies or poorly controlled symptoms despite optimal medical therapy. Antianginal medications aim to reduce the oxygen supply-demand mismatch and are generally effective in improving symptoms; quality of life; effort tolerance and time to ischemia onset and may improve prognosis in selected populations. Since antianginal medications have different mechanisms of action and side effects; their use should be tailored according to patient history and potential drug-drug interactions. Angina with non-obstructed coronary arteries patients should be phenotyped with invasive assessment and treated accordingly. Patients with refractory angina represent a higher-risk population in which some therapeutic options are available to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life; but robust data from large randomized controlled trials are still lacking.

It's not all about ISCHEMIA: the case for coronary artery bypass grafting in stable coronary artery disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Guidelines for Coronary Artery Revascularization have raised concerns on the survival benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and appropriate conduit selection for CABG. This review summarizes the evidence supporting CABG for stable CAD and use of the radial artery as a conduit for CABG.

RECENT FINDINGS

CABG has consistently demonstrated a survival benefit over GDMT for patients with stable multivessel CAD. These benefits were more pronounced in patients with diabetes and/or anatomically complex coronary artery disease. The recently published International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial was not designed to and did not include an appropriate patient population to compare revascularization with CABG to GDMT. These results should thus be viewed in the context of previously published studies. Furthermore, increasing evidence suggests that use of a radial artery in CABG is associated with reduced myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. This should be considered when selecting the appropriate conduits based on underlying patient factors.

SUMMARY

Readers should be cautious when applying these guidelines broadly. Appropriate consideration of patient and anatomic factors, and in consultation with a multidisciplinary heart team, is important to achieve the best outcomes for patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are the options for revascularization in coronary artery disease (CAD). This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of CABG and PCI for the management of patients with CAD. The meta-analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. The reference list of included articles was also searched manually for additional publications. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. In total, 12 randomized control trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 9,941 patients (4,954 treated with CABG and 4,987 with PCI). The analysis showed that PCI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-1.45) and revascularization (RR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.82-3.21). However, no significant differences were reported between two arms regarding cardiovascular mortality (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.96-1.39), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.82-1.67), and stroke (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.35-1.16). CABG was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and revascularization compared to PCI. However, no significant difference was reported in the risk of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke between the two groups.

Long-term outcome of percutaneous or surgical revascularization with and without prior stroke in patients with three-vessel disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether high-risk patients with three-vessel disease (TVD) with and without prior stroke preferentially benefit from three strategies [percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and medical therapy (MT)].

METHODS

A total of 8943 patients with TVD were included in the study. Patients enrolled were stratified into two categories according to the presence or absence of prior stroke history. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. Secondary endpoints included stroke and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization and stroke.

RESULTS

Prior stroke was present in 888 patients (9.9%). These patients were older and had higher rates of comorbidities. During a median follow-up of 7.5 years, patients with prior stroke were strongly associated with increased risks of all-cause death, cardiac death, stroke and MACCE, even after adjusting for confounding variables and results been consistent across either treatment subgroup (PCI, CABG and MT) (all adjusted P < 0.01). Notably, there was a significant interaction between prior stroke history and treatment strategies. Revascularization strategy (PCI or CABG) was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause death and MACCE compared with MT alone, and favorable rates of MACCE, MI and unplanned revascularization in the CABG group compared with the PCI group, but with similar rate of all-cause death regardless of prior stroke history. The prevalence of stroke was significantly higher after CABG when compared with PCI or MT in no prior stroke patients [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.429, 95% CI: 1.132-1.805 for CABG vs. MT; HR = 1.703, 95% CI: 1.371-2.116 for CABG vs. PCI].

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with TVD and prior stroke have poor clinical outcomes. It is essential to balance benefit and risk when determining the optimal treatment strategy for TVD with and without prior stroke.