Search

Mechanisms of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) differ as CABG provides surgical collateralization and may prolong life by preventing future myocardial infarctions (MI). However, CABG benefits are unclear in octogenarians, where surgical risk is often perceived as higher and PCI is chosen more liberally. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes in octogenarians with left main or multivessel disease who underwent CABG or PCI. Primary outcome was late mortality (> 5 years). Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality, MI, re-revascularization (R-R), acute renal failure (ARF), and stroke. Fourteen studies with 17,942 patients were included. CABG was associated with lower late mortality (hazard ratio, HR: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: CI 1.05–1.44, p < 0.01). In the pooled Kaplan–Meier analysis CABG showed significantly lower risk of death in the follow-up compared to PCI (HR: 1.08, 95%CI 1.02–1.41, p = 0.005). Landmark analyses confirmed the survival advantage of CABG over PCI after 21.5 months of follow-up (HR: 1.31, 1.19–1.44, p < 0.0001), but suggested advantage of PCI over CABG in the first 30-days (HR: 0.72, 0.64–0.82, p < 0.0001) and comparable survival from 1 to 21.5 months (HR: 0.98, 0.92–1.05, p = 0.652). We found lower risk for MI and R-R after CABG but higher perioperative mortality and no differences in ARF and stroke. CABG appears superior to PCI over time in octogenarians with complex CAD. This survival advantage is associated with fewer events of MI and R-R; however, it comes with an increased risk in perioperative mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) affects millions of patients. Although an invasive strategy can improve survival, the optimal treatment [i.e., percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] is not clear. We performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting outcomes between PCI and CABG in patients with NSTE-ACS. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were assessed. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Inverse variance method and random model were performed. We identified 13 observational studies (48,891 patients). No significant difference was found in the primary endpoint [CABG vs. PCI, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70; 1.23]. CABG was associated with lower long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54; 0.76) and lower long-term re-revascularization (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30; 0.47). There was no significant difference in long-term myocardial infarction (CABG vs. PCI, IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50; 1.84) and peri-operative mortality (CABG vs. PCI, odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI 0.94; 1.95). For the treatment of NSTE-ACS, CABG and PCI are associated with similar rates of long-term mortality and myocardial infarction. CABG is associated with lower rates of long-term MACE and re-revascularization. Randomized comparisons in this setting are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) affects millions of patients. Although an invasive strategy can improve survival, the optimal treatment [i.e., percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] is not clear. We performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting outcomes between PCI and CABG in patients with NSTE-ACS. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were assessed. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Inverse variance method and random model were performed. We identified 13 observational studies (48,891 patients). No significant difference was found in the primary endpoint [CABG vs. PCI, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70; 1.23]. CABG was associated with lower long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54; 0.76) and lower long-term re-revascularization (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30; 0.47). There was no significant difference in long-term myocardial infarction (CABG vs. PCI, IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50; 1.84) and peri-operative mortality (CABG vs. PCI, odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI 0.94; 1.95). For the treatment of NSTE-ACS, CABG and PCI are associated with similar rates of long-term mortality and myocardial infarction. CABG is associated with lower rates of long-term MACE and re-revascularization. Randomized comparisons in this setting are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the use of computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The evidence suggests that CT can accurately detect CAD and improve patient outcomes compared to invasive procedures. Three fundamental changes are proposed for integrating CT into clinical pathways for CAD: better prevention of cardiovascular events, individual determination of treatment strategy, and improved procedural planning. However, there are limitations to the current evidence base, and further research is needed to assess the use of CT in different patient populations. Overall, multidisciplinary research has made important advancements in CAD diagnosis and treatment, and there is potential for further improvements in non-invasive cardiovascular imaging. [Extracted from the article]