Coronary artery bypass grafting in young patients--insights into a distinct entity

Comparative Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major global health issue and a leading cause of death. This study compares the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the management of IHD, focusing on their impact on revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and post-procedural stroke. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of PCI and CABG in treating IHD based on an exhaustive literature review of the past 5 years, emphasizing recent advancements and outcomes in IHD management.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review analyzed 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The study specifically assessed the incidences of revascularization, stroke, and MI in patients treated with either PCI or CABG. The comparison between CABG and PCI exclusively focused on lesions with a SYNTAX score exceeding 32.

Results

Our findings highlight CABG's significant efficacy over PCI in reducing revascularization and MI. The aggregated Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) value for revascularization was 1.85 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.65 - 2.07), signifying CABG's advantage. Additionally, CABG demonstrated superior performance in diminishing MI occurrences (M-H = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.13 - 6.53). In contrast, PCI was more effective in reducing stroke (M-H = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.10).

Conclusion

The study confirms CABG's superiority in reducing revascularization and MI in IHD patients, highlighting PCI's effectiveness in reducing stroke risk. These findings underscore the importance of personalized treatment strategies in IHD management and emphasize the need for ongoing research and evidence-based guidelines to aid in treatment selection for IHD patients.

Does Age Affect the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Coronary Bypass Grafting?

The etiology of coronary artery disease (CAD) is multifactorial, stemming from both modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors such as age. Several studies have reported the effects of age on various outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This article reviews age-related outcomes of CABG and offers direction for further studies in the field to create comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of CAD. Ninety-two primary sources were analyzed for relevance to the subject matter, of which 17 were selected for further analysis: 14 retrospective cohort studies, 2 randomized clinical trials, and 1 meta-analysis. Our review revealed four broad age ranges into which patients can be grouped: those with CAD (1) below the age of 40 years, (2) between the ages of 40 and 60 years, (3) between the ages of 60 and 80 years, and (4) at or above 80 years. Patients below the age of 40 years fare best overall with total arterial revascularization (TAR). Patients between the ages of 40 and 60 years also fare well with the use of multiarterial grafts (MAGs) whereas either MAGs or single-arterial grafts may be of significant benefit to patients at or above the age of 60 years, with younger and diabetic patients benefitting the most. Arterial grafting is superior to vein grafting until the age of 80 years, at which point there is promising evidence supporting the continued use of the saphenous vein as the favored graft substrate. Age is a factor affecting the outcomes of CABG but should not serve as a barrier to offering patients CABG at any age from either a cost or a health perspective. Operative intervention starts to show significant mortality consequences at the age of 80 years, but the increased risk is countered by maintenance or improvement to patients' quality of life.

Coronary Artery Bypass in Young Patients-On or Off-Pump?

A definitive conclusion regarding whether on-pump or off-pump coronary artery bypass is preferable in young patients is lacking. The aim of our study was to perform a long-term comparison of the two approaches in young patients. We analyzed the National Health Insurance Research Database, using data for patients between 18 and 45 years of age who had undergone isolated coronary artery bypass between 2001 and 2011. The study endpoints were: all-cause death, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and repeat revascularization within 30 days, 1 year, 5 years, and the entire 10-year follow-up period. A total of 344 patients received off-pump surgery and 741 patients received on-pump surgery. Preoperative characteristics and comorbidities were similar in both groups, and all-cause mortality was almost equal (p = 0.716). The 5-year survival rates were 93.9% and 92.2% in the off-pump and on-pump groups, respectively, and the 10-year survival rates were 86.3% and 82.1%, respectively. The repeat revascularization rate was significantly lower in the on-pump group (p = 0.0407). Both the on-pump and off-pump methods offer equally good long-term outcomes in terms of mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. However, the need for repeat revascularization is a concern in the long term after off-pump surgery.

Permanent work disability in patients ≤50 years old after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting (the CRAGS study)

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of permanent working disability (PWD) in young patients after percutaneous or surgical coronary revascularization.

Methods and Results

The study included 1035 consecutive patients ≤50 years old who underwent coronary revascularization [910 and 125 patients in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) groups, respectively] between 2002 and 2012 at 4 Finnish hospitals. The median follow-up time was 41 months. The overall incidence of PWD was higher after CABG compared to PCI (at 5 years, 34.8 vs. 14.7%, P < 0.001). Freedom from PWD in the general population aged 45 was 97.2% at 4 years follow-up. Median time to grant disability pension was 11.6 months after CABG and 24.4 months after PCI (P = 0.018). Reasons for PWD were classified as cardiac (35.3 vs. 36.9%), psychiatric (14.7 vs. 14.6%), and musculoskeletal (14.7 vs. 15.5%) in patients undergoing CABG vs. PCI. Overall freedom from PWD was higher in patients without major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) (at 5 years, 85.6 vs. 71.9%, P < 0.001). Nevertheless, rate of PWD was high also in patients without MACCE and patients with preserved ejection fraction during follow-up.

Conclusions

Although coronary revascularization confers good overall survival in young patients, PWD is common especially after CABG and mostly for cardiac reasons even without occurrence of MACCE. Supportive measures to preserve occupational health are warranted concomitantly with coronary revascularization at all levels of health care.