Key result
Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bypass graft failure resulted in similar 5-year rates of death, MI, or target vessel revascularization compared to redo CABG (57.6% vs 51%; P=0.51).
Why the study?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention compared to redo coronary artery bypass grafting improve clinical outcomes in patients with coronary bypass graft failure?
Cohort (n=287)
Does percutaneous coronary intervention compared to redo coronary artery bypass grafting improve clinical outcomes in patients with coronary bypass graft failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 57.6% vs 51%
p-value: p=0.51
Clinical outcomes are similarly poor after heart-team triage for surgical or percutaneous intervention in patients with graft failure, though repeat revascularization is more frequent after PCI.
Similar composite outcomes after PCI or CABG for graft failure; leaves open optimal strategy pending randomized trials.
AIMS: To describe long-term outcome following surgical and percutaneous revascularization in graft failure. METHODS: We analyzed consecutive patients with graft failure after heart-team assignment to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2003 and 2008. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates were calculated up to a 5-year follow-up. Independent predictors for outcomes were identified by backward selection in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: We identified 287 patients treated for graft failure: 243 with PCI and 44 with redo CABG. Patients undergoing PCI more frequently presented with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) (P < 0.001), multivessel disease (P < 0.001), vein graft failure (P = 0.04), a history of MI (P < 0.001) and shorter time-to-graft failure (P = 0.001). Bare-metal stents (BMS) were used in 81.3% of the PCI-treated lesions and drug-eluting stents (DES) in 18.7%. The median follow-up was 3.9 years. Five-year rate of composite all-cause death, MI or TVR was 57.6% after PCI and 51% after CABG (P = 0.51). Repeat revascularization [TVR and target lesion revascularization (TLR)] was 30.7 and 21.3% after PCI, and 8.0 and 3.2% following CABG (P = 0.009; P = 0.008). In the PCI group, BMS was associated with higher rates of TVR (35.1 vs. 12.6%; P = 0.04) and TLR (24.8 vs. 7.6%; P = 0.04), but similar rate of death or MI compared with DES. Independent predictors for the primary outcome were creatinine [hazard ratio 1.008 per μmol/l, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.005-1.011, P < 0.001] and peak creatine kinase MB (hazard ratio 1.001 per U/l, 95% CI 1.000-1.002, P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes are similarly poor after heart-team triage for surgical or percutaneous intervention in patients with graft failure. Repeat revascularization occurred more frequent after PCI, particularly following BMS implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harskamp et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in coronary bypass graft failure (n=287). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. Redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was evaluated on composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target vessel revascularization (TVR) (p=0.51). Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bypass graft failure resulted in similar 5-year rates of death, MI, or target vessel revascularization compared to redo CABG (57.6% vs 51%; P=0.51).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: