Comparison of Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Coronary Artery Disease - Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Minimally Invasive Coronary Bypass for Isolated Left Anterior Descending Artery Disease

The optimal revascularization strategy for isolated left anterior descending (LAD) artery disease, minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), remains a subject of debate. This updated meta-analysis aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of MIDCAB versus PCI for patients with isolated LAD artery disease. Three databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and adjusted studies. Primary outcomes included long-term survival and repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary endpoint was long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Hazards ratios (HR) and Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for long-term outcomes and a random effects model was used. Sensitivity analyses included subgroups analysis of stent-type. Nine articles, comprising 4 RCTs, totaling 2,168 patients (MIDCAB = 1,086 and PCI = 1,080) were included. The weighted mean follow-up was 4.35 ± 4.9 years. Long-term survival was comparable between MIDCAB and PCI (HR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.00; p = 0.05). MIDCAB was associated with a significantly lower rate of repeat TVR (HR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.49; p <0.0001) and a reduced risk of MACEs (HR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.81; p <0.0001), although the difference was not evident in subgroup analysis comparing MIDCAB and PCI with drug-eluting stent (HR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.06; p = 0.09). In conclusion, this meta-analysis of RCTs and adjusted studies shows that in patients with isolated LAD lesion, MIDCAB and PCI exhibit comparable long-term survival. However, MIDCAB is associated with a significantly reduced risk of long-term repeat TVR and MACEs compared to PCI.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents for coronary artery revascularization

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the clinical efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of left main coronary artery and/or triple-vessel disease (LM and/or TVD).

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 1484 consecutive patients with LM and/or TVD in Shanxi Cardiovascular Hospital from January 2015 to December 2022 and divided them into the OPCAB group (n = 583) and the PCI group (with second-generation drug-eluting stents) (n = 901). Propensity score matching was used for 316 equally matched pairs of patients in the groups. The outcomes were all-cause and cardiac mortality, angina recurrence, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, which comprised non-lethal myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 3.93 years in the OPCAB group and 4.19 years in the PCI group. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, or non-lethal myocardial infarction between the groups. The incidence of repeat revascularization and angina recurrence was higher in the PCI group than in the OPCAB group. However, the incidence of stroke was higher in the OPCAB group than in the PCI group.

CONCLUSIONS

OPCAB may be a favorable coronary revascularization strategy for LM and/or TVD.

Alternative Approaches to Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, How Do They Compare?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Severe symptomatic CAD is treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Alternative CABG (ACABG) approaches including thoracotomy, off-pump, total endoscopic, and robotic-assisted CABG are increasing in prevalence to address the increased early risk of CABG. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the contemporary literature comparing outcomes after ACABG and PCI. Pubmed, Medline, and Embase were systematically searched by 2 authors for articles comparing the outcomes after ACABG and PCI. A total of 1154 articles were screened, and 11 were included in this review. The RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis of the pooled data. Individual studies found rates of long-term survival, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization either favored ACABG or did not differ significantly. Pooled estimates of the compiled data identified rates of MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization favored ACABG. The results of this review demonstrated the favorable rates of long-term mortality, MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization for ACABG in addition to similar short-term mortality and stroke when compared with PCI. Advancement of both CABG and PCI continues to improve patient outcomes. With the increasing prevalence of ACABG, similar studies will need to be undertaken with further direct comparisons between ACABG and PCI. Finally, hybrid revascularization should continue to be explored for its combined benefits of long-term outcomes, short-term safety, and ability to achieve complete revascularization.