Revascularisation strategies in patients with significant left main coronary disease during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cardiovascular Health Care Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the capacity of health care systems around the world, including substantial disruptions to cardiovascular care across key areas of health care delivery. In this narrative review, we examine the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for cardiovascular health care, including excess cardiovascular mortality, acute and elective cardiovascular care, and disease prevention. Additionally, we consider the long-term public health consequences of disruptions to cardiovascular care across both primary and secondary care settings. Finally, we review health care inequalities and their driving factors, as highlighted by the pandemic, and consider their importance in the context of cardiovascular health care.

Complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention types, trends, and in-hospital outcomes among different age groups: An insight from a national registry

BACKGROUND

Complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (CHiP) is increasingly being undertaken in octogenarians. However, limited data exist on CHiP types, trends, and outcomes in the octogenarian.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study from a national registry dataset on CHiP undertaken in patients with stable angina in England and Wales (January 2006 and December 2017) according to three age groups (group 1 [G1]: < 65 years; group 2 [G2]: 65-79 years; and group 3 [G3]: ≥80 years).

RESULTS

Of 424,290 elective PCI procedures, 138,831 (33.0%) were CHiP [G1: 46,832 (33.7%); G2: 59,544 (42.9%); G3: 32,455 (23.4%)]. Among CHiP types, chronic total occlusion (CTO) (49.2%), prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (30.4%), and severe vascular calcification (21.8%) were common in G1; prior CABG (42.9%), CTO (32.9%), and severe vascular calcifications (27%) were common in G2; prior CABG (15.8%), severe vascular calcification (15.5%), and chronic renal failure (11.1%) were common CHiP among the octogenarians. The older age groups had higher adjusted odds (aOR) for adverse outcomes [G2: mortality, aOR 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): (1.3-2.3); major bleeding, aOR 1.3, 95% CI (1.1-1.5); MACCE, aOR 1.2, 95% CI (1.0-1.3); G3: mortality, aOR 2.6, 95%CI (1.9-3.6); major bleeding, aOR 1.4, 95% CI (1.1-1.7); MACCE, aOR 1.3, 95% CI (1.1-1.5)].

CONCLUSION

There were significant differences in the types of CHiP cases undertaken and clinical outcomes across age groups.

Ethnicity in Complex High-Risk but Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Types and Outcomes

Complex High-risk but indicated Percutaneous coronary interventions (CHiPs) is increasingly common in contemporary practice. However, data on ethnic differences in CHiP types, outcomes, and trends in patients with stable angina are limited; this is pertinent given the population of Black, Asian, and other ethnic minorities (BAME) in Europe is increasing. We conducted a retrospective analysis of CHiP procedures undertaken in patients with stable angina using data obtained from the BCIS (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society) registry (2006 to 2017). CHiP cases were identified and categorized by ethnicity into White and BAME groups. We then performed multivariable regression analysis and propensity score matching to determine adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCEs) in BAME compared with Whites. Of 424,290 procedure records, 105,949 were CHiP (25.0%) (White 89,038 [84%], BAME 16,911 [16%]). BAME patients were younger (median 68.1 vs 70.6 years). Previous coronary artery bypass surgery (33.4% vs 38.3%), followed by chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (31.9% vs 32%) were common CHiP variables in both groups. The third common variable was age 80 years and above (23.6%) in White patients and severe vascular calcifications in BAME patients (18.8%). BAME patients had higher rates of diabetes (41.1 vs 23.6%), hypertension (68 vs 66.5%), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (43.7 vs 37.6%), and previous myocardial infarction (44.9 vs 42.5%), (p <0.001 for all). Mortality (aOR 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8 to 1.5) and MACCE (aOR 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1) odds were similar among the groups. Bleeding odds (aOR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9) were lower in BAME. In conclusion, CHiP procedures differed among the ethnic groups. BAME patients were younger and had worse cardiometabolic profiles. Similar odds of death and MACCE were seen in BAME compared with their White counterparts. Bleeding odds were 30% lower in the BAME group.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft in patients with STEMI and unprotected left main stem disease: A systematic review & meta-analysis

•

The advent of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has caused much debate about the optimal revascularization method for LMCAD.

•

Several studies have previously been conducted comparing PCI versus CABG for LMCAD, however most of these have only taken into account randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while ignoring observational studies.

•

This study takes data from both RCTs and observational studies to obtain a better comparison of the two revascularization techniques.

•

It is the first meta-analysis to report data for various adverse outcomes after 10 years of follow-up.

Introduction

Owing to its large area of supply, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) has the highest mortality rate among coronary artery lesions, resulting in debate about its optimal revascularization technique. This meta-analysis compares percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of LMCAD.

Method

MEDLINE, TRIP, and Cochrane Central databases were queried from their inception until 25 April 2021, to determine MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events), all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke rates post-revascularization for different follow-ups. 7 RCTs and 50 observational studies having 56,701 patients were included. A random-effects model was used with effect sizes calculated as odds ratios (odds ratio, OR).

Results

In the short term (1 year), PCI had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.58, 95% CI 2.47–5.20; p < 0.00001), but lower strokes (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.81; p = 0.002). In the intermediate term (2–5 years), PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.72–4.44; p < 0.00001) and MI (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.17–1.64; p = 0.0002), but significantly lower strokes (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.42–0.70; p < 0.0001). PCI also had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.89–3.52; p < 0.00001) in the long term (≥5 years), while in the very long term (≥10 years), PCI had significantly lower all-cause mortalities (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.96; p = 0.02).

Conclusion

PCI was safer than CABG for patients with stroke for most follow-ups, while CABG was associated with lower repeat revascularizations. However, further research is required to determine PCI’s safety over CABG for reducing post-surgery MI.