Why the study?
It was unknown whether an on- versus off-pump surgical revascularization strategy affected clinical outcomes when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with left main disease.
Does on-pump or off-pump CABG compared to PCI improve 5-year outcomes in patients with left main disease?
Does on-pump or off-pump CABG compared to PCI improve 5-year outcomes in patients with left main disease?
On-pump CABG is associated with decreased 5-year mortality and ischemia-driven revascularization compared to PCI for left main disease, whereas off-pump CABG shows similar outcomes to PCI.
Should not change left main revascularization practice; leaves open optimal on- versus off-pump strategy versus PCI.
Objective We performed a post hoc analysis of the Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial to determine the effect an on-versus off-pump strategy had on outcomes when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods All randomized patients in EXCEL (n = 1905) were included. The outcomes of interest were the primary end point composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; the composite study end point or ischemia-driven revascularization; and the rate of death from any cause at 5 years. Event rates were based on Kaplan–Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. Results Propensity matching resulted in groups of 1142 patients (571 each) for on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention and 472 patients (236 each) for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention. In the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point was similar (18.0% vs 22.1%, P = .19) and the composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (23.3% vs 31.0%, P = .01) was lower, and mortality (7.6% vs 11.8%, P = .025) was lower in the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting group at 5 years. In the off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point (19.4% vs 22.2%, P = .47), composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (25.9% vs 34.2%, P = .07), and mortality (12.5% vs 14.2%, P = .59) were similar at 5 years. Conclusions In the EXCEL trial, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a decreased 5-year rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization, and decreased mortality when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas outcomes of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were similar to percutaneous coronary intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jarrett et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: