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.

Long term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus with multi vessels diseases: A meta-analysis

AIMS

Long term cardiovascular outcome comparison of multivessel coronary disease among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is limited. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term cardiovascular outcome PCI vs CABG among DM patients with multivessel disease.

METHOD AND RESULTS

Online databases were explored to identify studies that compared cardiovascular outcomes between PCI and CABG among patients with DM. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), rate of revascularization, cardiac death, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA). A total of 27 studies with 37,091 (PCI n = 19,838 (53 %) and CABG n = 17,253 (47 %)) patients were included. The mean age was 64 ± 5.9 years for PCI group and 63.8 ± 5.3 years for CABG group; and, predominantly male (71.22 % vs 74.29 %) for PCI and CABG respectively. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (64.35 % vs 62.88 %) in both PCI and CABG respectively. Compared with CABG, PCI group had a higher odds of overall all-cause mortality (OR 1.18, 95 % CI 1.02-1.37, p = 0.03), MACCE (OR 1.52, 95 % CI 1.31-1.75, p = 0.00), MI (OR 1.85, 95 % CI 1.46-2.36, p = 0.00), repeat revascularization (OR 3.08, 95 % CI 2.34-4.05, p = 0.00) and cardiac death (OR 1.27, 95 % 1.02-1.59, p = 0.04), while CVA (0.57, 95 % CI 0.37-0.86, p = 0.01) was higher with CABG.

CONCLUSION

Diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease have worse outcomes undergoing PCI as compared to CABG. However, CVA was significantly higher with CABG. CABG remains the preferred management among eligible patients with multivessel disease and DM.

The Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Stenting in High-Risk Patients: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of a Single-Centre Experience

BACKGROUND

There are limited economic evaluations comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) in contemporary, routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing CABG and PCI in patients with MVCAD, from the perspective of the Australian public hospital payer, using observational data sources.

METHODS

Clinical data from the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) registries were analysed for 1022 CABG (treatment) and 978 PCI (comparator) procedures performed between June 2009 and December 2013. Clinical records were linked to same-hospital admissions and national death index (NDI) data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) avoided were evaluated. The propensity score bin bootstrap (PSBB) approach was used to validate base-case results.

RESULTS

At mean follow-up of 2.7 years, CABG compared with PCI was associated with increased costs and greater all-cause mortality, but a significantly lower rate of MACCE. An ICER of $55,255 (Australian dollars)/MACCE avoided was observed for the overall cohort. The ICER varied across comparisons against bare metal stents (ICER $25,815/MACCE avoided), all drug-eluting stents (DES) ($56,861), second-generation DES ($42,925), and third-generation of DES ($88,535). Moderate-to-low ICERs were apparent for high-risk subgroups, including those with chronic kidney disease ($62,299), diabetes ($42,819), history of myocardial infarction ($30,431), left main coronary artery disease ($38,864), and heart failure ($36,966).

CONCLUSIONS

At early follow-up, high-risk subgroups had lower ICERs than the overall cohort when CABG was compared with PCI. A personalised, multidisciplinary approach to treatment of patients may enhance cost containment, as well as improving clinical outcomes following revascularisation strategies.

Effects of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Viable Myocardium and Heart Function of Diabetic Patients With Chronic Total Occlusion

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on coronary chronic total occlusion patients with (DM) or without (NDM) diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

A total of 78 patients were divided into DM group and NDM group according to whether the patient has DM. The results of PCI were analyzed using quantitative coronary analysis. In addition, all the patients underwent Tc-MIBI (methoxyisobutylisonitrile) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and ultrasonic cardiogram in the first week and the sixth month after PCI to evaluate PCI results. During the 6-month follow-up, major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was recorded and analyzed as well.

RESULTS

The first and second classes of collateral circulation between the 2 groups have significant differences (P < 0.05). Left ventricular end-diastolic volume index and left ventricular end-systolic volume index were decreased at the sixth month compared with those at the first week. Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly increased. In both groups, the defect size significantly reduced, and percentage of radionuclide scintigraphic count significantly increased between rest and nitroglycerin interventional SPECT. After 6 months, both groups repeated nitroglycerin interventional SPECT, which showed that defect size was significantly reduced, and the percentage of radionuclide scintigraphic count was significantly increased compared with those of the first week. During the 6-month follow-up, the incidence of MACE between the 2 groups had no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous coronary intervention has beneficial effects on heart functions and MACE when performed on chronic total occlusion patients with and without DM.

Comparing mortality between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in elderly with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease

Coronary artery disease is a critical issue that requires physicians to consider appropriate treatment strategies, especially for elderly people who tend to have several comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus (DM) and multivessel disease (MVD). Several studies have been conducted comparing clinical outcomes between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in patients with DM and MVD. However, elderly people were excluded in those clinical studies. Therefore, there are no comparisons of clinical outcomes between CABG and PCI in elderly patients with DM and MVD. We compared all-cause mortality between PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) and CABG in elderly patients with DM and MVD. A total of 483 (PCI; n = 256, CABG; n = 227) patients were analyzed. The median follow-up period was 1356 days (interquartile range of 810-1884). The all-cause mortality rate was not significantly different between CABG and PCI with DES groups. The CABG group had more patients with complex coronary lesions such as three-vessel disease or a left main trunk lesion. Older age, hemodialysis, and reduced LVEF were associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. The rate of all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the PCI and CABG groups in elderly patients with DM and MVD in a single-center study.

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

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), a new minimally invasive procedure for patients requiring revascularization for multivessel coronary lesions, combines coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left anterior descending (LAD) lesions and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD coronary lesions. However, available data related to outcomes comparing the 3 revascularization therapies is limited to small studies.We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials up to December 31, 2014, without language restriction. A total of 16 randomized trials (n=4858 patients) comparing HCR versus PCI or off-pump CABG (OPCAB) were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events (CVE), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effect and fixed-effect models. Ranking probabilities were used to calculate a summary numerical value: the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.No significant differences were seen between the HCR and PCI in short term (in hospital and 30 days) with regard to MACCE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-2.35), all-cause death (OR = 2.09, 95% CI 0.34-7.66), MI (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.19-2.95), CVE (OR = 4.45, 95% CI 0.39-19.16), and TVR (OR = 6.99, 95% CI 0.17-39.39). However, OPCAB had lower MACCE than HCR (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.00-0.95). In midterm (1 year and 3 year), in comparison with HCR, PCI had higher all-cause death (OR = 5.66, 95% CI 0.00-13.88) and CVE (OR = 4.40, 95% CI 0.01-5.68), and lower MI (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.86), TVR (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.05-2.26), and thus the MACCE (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.35). Off-pump CABG presented a better outcome than HCR with significant lower MACCE (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.68). Surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities showed that HCR may be the superior strategy for MVD and LMCA disease when regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.84), MI (SUCRA = 0.76) in short term, and regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.99), MI (SUCRA = 0.94), and CVE (SUCRA = 0.92) in midterm.Hybrid coronary revascularization seemed to be a feasible and acceptable option for treatment of LMCA disease and MVD. More powerful evidences are required to precisely evaluate risks and benefits of the 3 therapies for patients who have different clinical characteristics.

Coronary artery bypass grafting versus drug-eluting stents in patients with severe coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the comparative benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with diabetes mellitus and severe coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect was undertaken. References cited with the papers were also checked to identify relevant articles.

RESULTS

In all, four randomized controlled trials, two prospective registries, and 11 retrospective studies were identified for review. Pooled analysis demonstrated that DES was associated with lower all-cause mortality at Day 30. However, there was no significant difference between CABG and DES in mortality at 12 months and at maximum follow-up. Furthermore, DES was associated with lower overall and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)-free survival, as well as a higher incidence of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. In contrast, CABG was associated with an increased risk of stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with diabetes mellitus and severe CAD, CABG is superior to DES in that it significantly improves overall and MACCE-free survival and reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization in the long term, although it is associated with greater perioperative risk and a higher incidence of stroke. Therefore, CABG should remain the gold standard for these patients.

Drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients with multi-vessel disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data comparing long-term results after percutaneous intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES/PCI) and coronary artery grafting (CABG) in diabetic patients (pts) with multi-vessel disease is conflicting. We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to help answer this issue.

METHODS

MEDLINE, WoS, and Scopus were systematically analysed to yield observational studies (OBS) or randomised controlled trials (RCT) fulfilling search criteria. Odds ratio (OR) for studied end-points were obtained with inverse variance random effects analysis. Results are presented with 95% confidence intervals with significance at p<0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies (5 RCT; 9 OBS) including more than 5000 pts were selected for review. Early/30-day was lower in the DES/PCI cohort [OR 0.49(0.27, 0.88); p=0.02; I(2)=0%]. Post-procedural stroke was higher in the CABG (1.8%) cohort compared to DES/PCI (0.17%; p<0.01). A pooled analysis of RCT demonstrated that stroke rate was similar in both cohorts at the end of one year [OR 0.84(0.19, 3.74); p=0.82; I(2) =67%]. During a follow-up of three to five years, repeat intervention was much higher in the DES/PCI cohort [OR 3.02(2.13, 4.28; p<0.01]. The odds of suffering an adverse cardiovascular /cerebrovascular event were 1.71 (1.27, 2.3) times higher in the DES/PCI cohort compared to CABG.

CONCLUSION

In diabetic patients with multivessel disease, early mortality is lower in the DES/PCI cohort. While peri-procedural stroke rates are lower with PCI, they are, however, comparable at the end of one year. Use of drug-eluting stents leads to a higher rate of re-intervention and major cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events at three to five years.

Is off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting superior to drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease? A meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

As drug-eluting stent (DES) has almost overcome the disadvantage of frequent restenosis, off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) has been introduced to avoid complications of cardiopulmonary bypass. However, which approach may promise better outcomes for patients with coronary artery disease remains controversial.

METHODS

Three databases were searched. The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause death, target vessel revascularization (TVR), repeat revascularization (RRV), myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebrovascular events (CVE). The relative risk (RR) was calculated as the summary statistic.

RESULTS

11,452 patients from 22 studies were included, of which 4949 patients underwent OPCAB and 6503 patients received DES. The cumulative rates of MACCE (RR [95% CI]=0.43 [0.34, 0.54], P<0.00001), all-cause death (RR [95% CI]=0.56 [0.33, 0.96], P=0.03), TVR (RR [95% CI]=0.33 [0.21, 0.53], P<0.00001), RRV (RR [95% CI]=0.22 [0.11, 0.42], P<0.00001) and MI (RR [95% CI]=0.13 [0.05, 0.29], P<0.00001) at 3 years were all lower in OPCAB group. The incidences of in-hospital death (RR [95% CI]=1.31 [0.81, 2.13], P=0.27) and MI (RR [95% CI]=1.03 [0.60, 1.78], P=0.92) were not different between groups, but the rate of in-hospital CVE was lower (RR [95% CI]=2.6355 [1.0033, 6.9228], P=0.05) in DES group.

CONCLUSIONS

OPCAB presents better long-term outcomes of MACCE, all-cause mortality, TVR, RRV and MI but uncertain outcome of postoperative CVE without influencing the incidences of in-hospital death and MI.

Comparing mortality and myocardial infarction between coronary artery bypass grafting and drug-eluting stenting in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We aim to compare the midterm outcomes between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients who had multivessel coronary artery diseases (CAD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify the related clinical studies with a follow-up for 1 year at least. The endpoints were death, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

RESULTS

Finally, the analysis of ten studies involving 5,264 patients showed that patients with CABG had worse baseline characteristics, a higher rate of stable angina pectoris, a higher percentage of triple-vessel disease, higher incidence of chronic total occlusion and a higher SYNTAX score. However, there was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups. Additionally, the rates of myocardial infarction and MACCE were markedly decreased in the CABG group.

CONCLUSIONS

The strategy of CABG is better than PCI for diabetic patients with multivessel CAD. The CABG can significantly reduce the rates of myocardial infarction and MACCE and is comparable in mortality despite the worse baseline characteristics.

Meta-analysis of 14 trials comparing bypass grafting vs drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Clinical trials have reported lower mortality and repeated revascularization rate in diabetic patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as compared to percutaneous revascularization. However, these studies were conducted in the era of bare-metal stents. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare CABG to PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) in diabetic patients with multivessel and/or left main disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The literature was scanned by formal search of electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases), and major international scientific session abstracts from 2000 to 2013. Primary endpoint was mortality. A total of 14 (4 randomized and 10 non-randomized) trials were finally included, with a total of 7072 patients. Up to 5 years follow-up, CABG was associated with a reduction in mortality (7.3% vs 10.4%, OR[95%CI] = 0.65[0.55-0.77], p < 0.0001; phet = 0.00001), with similar results in both RCTs (OR[95%CI] = 0.64[0.50-0.82], p = 0.0005) and NRCTs (OR[95%CI] = 0.75[0.6-0.94)], p = 0.01) (p int = 0.93). A significant relationship was observed between risk profile and benefits in mortality with CABG (p < 0.001). CABG reduced target vessel revascularization (TVR; 5.2% vs 15.7%, OR[95%CI] = 0.30[0.25-0.36], p < 0.00001, p het = 0.02), with a relationship between risk profile and the benefits from CABG as compared to DES (p < 0.0001). CABG was associated with a lower rate of MACCE (14.9% vs 22.9%, OR[95%CI] = 0.59[0.51-0.67], p < 0.00001, p het<0.00001) but higher risk of CVA (3.6% vs 1.4%, OR[95%CI] = 2.34[1.63-3.35], p < 0.00001, p het = 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis demonstrates that among diabetic patients with multivessel disease and/or left main disease, CABG provides benefits in mortality and TVR, especially in high-risk patients but it is counterbalanced by a higher risk of stroke. Future trials are certainly needed in the era of new DES and improved antiplatelet therapies.

A review with meta-analysis of observational studies for survival following off-pump coronary artery bypass versus drug-eluting stent implantation

To determine whether off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) improves survival over drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, we performed a review with meta-analysis of exclusive OPCAB versus DES. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2013 using Web-based search engines (PubMed and OVID). Studies that met the following criteria were considered for inclusion: the design was a randomized controlled trial or observational comparative study; the study population was patients with any coronary artery disease; patients were assigned to OPCAB versus DES and outcomes included all-cause mortality at ≥1 years. Our exhaustive search identified no randomized trial and 10 observational studies of OPCAB versus DES. A pooled analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between OPCAB and DES (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.15; P = 0.55). In general, exclusion of any single study from the analysis did not substantially alter the overall result of our analysis. There was no evidence of significant publication bias. In conclusion, OPCAB may not improve survival over DES despite greater number of treated vessels in OPCAB than in DES or greater number of distal anastomosis in OPCAB than that of implanted stents in DES.

Comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with drug-eluting stenting in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Although drug-eluting stents (DESs) reduce the rate of target vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents, the results of DESs for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) in the DES era are inconsistent. This meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease.

METHODS

We conducted a search of Medline, EMBASE from January 2003 to July 2013 by two reviewers independently, using the terms 'coronary artery bypass graft surgery', 'drug-eluting stent', 'sirolimus-eluting stent', 'paclitaxel-eluting stent', 'diabetes mellitus' and 'multivessel disease', according to established criteria. Studies comparing CABG with DES in patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 6653 patients with diabetes (3237 who underwent CABG and 3416 who underwent DES implantation) met the selection criteria. The mean follow-up period was 2.9 years (range 1-5). Compared with DES, CABG was associated with a lower risk for major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.58), driven mainly by a lower risk for repeat revascularization (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.23-0.35). There was no significant difference with regard to death (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.05). Patients in the CABG group had a higher risk for stroke events (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.45-3.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous coronary intervention with DES in patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD is safe, but has a high risk of long-term repeat revascularization. CABG should remain the standard procedure for diabetic patients with multivessel CAD.

Meta-analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with diabetes and left main and/or multivessel coronary artery disease

The optimal coronary revascularization strategy for patients with diabetes and left main and/or multivessel disease is undetermined. The aim of our study was to evaluate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in those patients. We identified 13 articles, published before October 2011, enrolling 6992 patients, whose follow-up period ranged from 1 to 5 years. Patients with PCI had a significant reduction in cerebral vascular attack (CVA) (OR, 0.29; 95 % CI, 0.16-0.51; p < 0.0001, I (2) = 0 %) as compared with CABG, whereas there was a fourfold increased risk of repeat revascularization associated with PCI even using drug-eluting stent (OR, 4.44; 95 % CI, 3.42-5.78; Χ(2) = 4.92, p < 0.00001, I (2) = 0 %). The overall mortality (OR, 0.97; 95 % CI, 0.81-1.15; p = 0.70, I (2) = 0 %) was comparable between the PCI and CABG. However, in subgroup analysis, the composite outcome (death/myocardial infarction/CVA) was significantly reduced in favor of DES implantation (OR, 0.79; 95 % CI, 0.63-0.99; Χ(2) = 1.07, p = 0.04, I (2) = 0 %). Our study confirmed the cerebral vascular benefits of PCI by significantly reducing CVA risks, and the composite outcome was better in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent, despite a higher repeat revascularization rate. It poses imperative demands for future prospective randomized studies to define the optimal strategy in patients with diabetes and left main and/or multivessel disease.

Percutaneous versus surgical interventions for coronary artery disease in those with diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disorder of multiple etiologies that causes long-term damage of various organs including the cardiovascular system. A consistent observation shows that DM amplifies the risk of cardiovascular events by 4- to 6-fold. Since coronary artery disease (CAD) in diabetic patients exhibits diffuse and accelerated lesions, invasive revascularization continues to be a challenge and has worse outcomes than patients without DM. Owing to the pathogenesis of DM and the presence of severe endothelial dysfunction, investigators have been trying to find new treatment modalities that could target the treatment of the disease rather than the treatment of the lesion. Until new treatment modalities are proven and gain acceptance, invasive revascularization remains to be the choice of treatment in such patients. The focus of this review is to compare the results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of stable CAD in patients with DM.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting revisited: experience and evidence from Japan

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) is performed in about 65% of patients who require surgical coronary revascularization, and has become the standard procedure in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in Japan. As a background of the high rate of OPCAB, many clinical and experimental studies have been performed and reported in Japan. In this review, several factors associated with OPCAB are discussed based on relevant and important clinical studies published in Japan in the English language.

Chromosome 9p21 single nucleotide polymorphisms are not associated with recurrent myocardial infarction in patients with established coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Chromosome 9p21 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been shown to be associated with coronary heart disease in multiple studies. The aim of the present study was to identify whether these SNPs are associated with recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, or death in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients or in those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS AND RESULTS

TexGen registry participants with ACS (n=2,067) or CABG (n=1,176) were evaluated, to assess whether 9p21 SNPs (rs1333049, rs2383206, rs10757278, rs10757274) were associated with recurrent MI (primary outcome), recurrent revascularization, or death (secondary outcomes) at approximately 3.2 years of follow-up. Carriers of risk allele (C) for rs1333049 presented at an earlier age (62 vs. 63.5 years in non-carriers, P=0.0004) with more extensive disease (number of vessels with significant stenosis: 1.9 vs. 1.7 in non-carriers, P=0.001) in the ACS group. In adjusted models, the C allele was not associated with recurrent MI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.38), recurrent revascularization (HR, 0.98; 95%CI: 0.78-1.23), or death (HR, 0.91; 95%CI: 0.69-1.18) in the ACS or CABG groups (recurrent MI: HR, 0.64; 95%CI: 0.40-1.05; recurrent revascularization: HR, 0.98; 95%CI: 0.61-1.55; death: HR, 0.89; 95%CI: 0.61-1.30). Results were similar for the other 3 SNPs.

CONCLUSIONS

9p21 SNPs were not associated with recurrent MI, revascularization, or mortality after ACS or CABG. Individuals with the rs1333049 C allele, however, may present with earlier and more extensive disease.

Impact of glycemic control on the clinical outcome in diabetic patients with percutaneous coronary intervention--from the FU-registry

BACKGROUND

It is not yet clear whether glycemic control affects the clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study compared the effects of glycemic control on the clinical outcome in 2 groups of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who underwent PCI: a poor-glycemic-control group, who showed greater than 6.9% HbA(1c) at the time of PCI (Pre-HbA(1c)) (`≥6.9 group', n=334 patients) and a good-glycemic-control group, who showed less than <6.9% at Pre-HbA(1c) (`<6.9 group', n=212 patients). The patients in the ≥6.9 group were further divided into 2 groups for further comparisons: a `DM control group' and a `Poor control group'. At follow-up (300 days), the incidence of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was significantly (P<0.05) lower in the <6.9 group (18.4% vs. 26.2%). However, there was no difference in MACE between the DM control group and the Poor control group. In a multivariate analysis, there was no relationship between the incidence of MACE and Pre-HbA(1c), Pre-HbA(1c)≥6.9% or the HbA(1c) difference (Pre-HbA(1c)-HbA(1c) at follow-up).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes in the <6.9 group were superior to those in the ≥6.9 group as pre-PCI glycemic control affected the baseline characteristics. The results suggested that glycemic control started at PCI was not associated with an improvement in the clinical outcome at follow-up.

A Novel Descriptive, Intelligible and Ordered (DINO) classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Review of current classifications

BACKGROUND

Several classification systems for coronary artery bifurcation lesions (CABL) have been described in the literature, but despite the commendable effort to simplify a difficult subject in interventional cardiology, all of them have certain limitations and shortcomings.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The proposed Descriptive, INtelligible and Ordered (DINO) is a new descriptive and clinically oriented system of classifying CABLs. This classification system takes into consideration more details of the side branch angulation relative to the main branch. It uses self-explanatory terms and mnemonic characters (acronyms related to the branches of the bifurcation and the shape of side branch angulation). The DINO classification describes the extent of CABL distribution and designates its localization at the bifurcation region. Moreover, systematized simple and easy to remember terms may form a relevant classification basis for multicenter and meta-analysis investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

The DINO is the first verbally anchored, all-inclusive classification system of CABLs. It describes precisely side branch angulation, using self-explanatory and instructive terms that describe both the extent of the lesion's distribution and its localization. The current coronary bifurcation lesion classifications are reviewed.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass vs percutaneous coronary intervention. Therapeutic strategies for 3-vessel coronary artery disease: OPCAB vs PCI(PCI-Side)

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is still the best therapy for patients with multivessel and left main coronary artery disease. Recently, the introduction of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in these patients has improved the restenosis rate compared with bare metal stents. Furthermore, according to the results of the SYNTAX trial, no differences were found in the frequencies of mortality or myocardial infarction between CABG and PCI patients. PCI with DES is being increasingly performed for the treatment of patients with either left main trunk, diffuse, or multivessel lesions. In Japan, to avoid any side effects from cardiopulmonary bypass, off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) was performed in 66% of the total isolated CABG procedures in 2009, and is markedly different from the procedures performed in North America and Europe. However, the comparative effectiveness of PCI and OPCAB remains uncertain. In the present study, the current evidence from randomized trials, a meta-analysis and several observation studies are reviewed.

Is angioplasty able to become the gold standard of treatment beyond bypass surgery for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease? Therapeutic strategies for 3-vessel coronary artery disease: OPCAB vs PCI(PCI-Side)

This article reviews the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been challenging coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the gold standard of care for patients with multivessel disease; however, the application of PCI to these patients has been mainly limited by restenosis. Up to the beginning of the 2000s, many large-scale, randomized trials addressed this issue by comparing CABG to PCI with balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents in not only Western countries but also in Asian countries. These studies demonstrated similar rates of all-cause death and myocardial infarction in both groups, although the need for revascularization remained significantly lower in the CABG group. PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) is safe and may represent a viable alternative to CABG for selected patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD. Moreover, DES implantation under intravascular ultrasound guidance and with fractional flow reserve might have the potential to influence treatment strategy and reduce both DES thrombosis and repeat revascularization. The evolution of DES and advanced vascular imaging would mean that PCI continues to challenge CABG as treatment of choice for patients who need revascularization for a better prognosis.