Long-term mortality in patients with ischaemic heart failure revascularized with coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR)

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. (A) Number of revascularized patients with ischaemic heart failure in Sweden between 2000 and 2008. The number of revascularized patients with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting increased by 7.5% per calendar year (P trend < 0.001). Between 2000 and 2008, coronary artery bypass grafting was the preferred method for revascularization of patients with ischaemic heart failure in Sweden. In 2009, percutaneous coronary intervention became the preferred revascularizaton method. The number of revascularized patients with percutaneous coronary intervention increased by 13.3% per calendar year (P trend < 0.001). In 2018, percutaneous coronary intervention was used 3.4 times more often than coronary artery bypass grafting. (B) Number of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting per hospital 2000–18. There was large variation between the hospitals in the preference for revascularization method ranging between 27–86% for percutaneous coronary intervention and 14–73% for coronary artery bypass grafting.

• 

  Figure 2. (A) Time-to-first-event curves for all-cause mortality through 10-year follow-up. Survival curves start separating after the 3rd year. Given non-proportional hazards during the follow-up period, logistic regression with follow-up time included as a log-transformed offset variable was used to calculate the odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals as a primary analysis. (B) Piecewise analysis for all-cause mortality from 0 to 3 years days, and 3 year to 10 years. Time-to-first event curves with landmarks at 3 years. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals in the two intervals were determined by Cox proportional-hazards regression. (C) Milestone and restricted mean survival time analyses for all-cause mortality during the 10-year follow-up period. Difference in restricted mean event-free survival time between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. Dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals. Mean event-free survival through 10 years was 0.59 years longer after coronary artery bypass grafting than after percutaneous coronary intervention (95% CI 0.21–0.98 years). (D) Milestone analysis representing the difference in probability of event-free…

• 

  Figure 3. Subgroup analysis for all-cause mortality. We found evidence for quantitative interaction between diabetes and coronary artery bypass grafting (P = 0.041). CAD, coronary artery disease.