Key result
Coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk NSTE-ACS patients was associated with a 13.3% hospital mortality rate, compared to 0% for percutaneous coronary intervention.
Why the study?
The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS remains controversial, with trade-offs between the long-term completeness of CABG and the low invasiveness and hospital outcomes of PCI.
Does CABG compared to PCI improve hospital outcomes in patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS?
Cohort (n=60)
Does CABG compared to PCI improve hospital outcomes in patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS?
Absolute Event Rate: 13.3% vs 0%
In high-risk NSTE-ACS patients, CABG performed within 24 hours was associated with higher hospital mortality (13.3%) compared to PCI (0%), despite achieving similar completeness of revascularization.
Supports caution with early CABG in high-risk NSTE-ACS; leaves open whether randomized trials would alter revascularization choices.
Highlights. Despite high hospital mortality after coronary bypass grafting in patients with high-risk non–STsegment elevation acute coronary syndrome, surgical myocardial revascularization remains a preferable treatment modality since percutaneous coronary intervention in these patients is associated with high perioperative complications due to severely calcified coronary lesions. Background. The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) remains the subject of many years of controversy. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improves the long-term prognosis through complete revascularization, however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), due to its availability and low invasiveness, suggests an improvement in hospital outcomes. Aim. To compare hospital outcomes of CABG and PCI performed within 24 hours in high-risk NSTE-ACS patients. Methods. In the present study, the first group included 30 NSTE-ACS patients who underwent CABG in the first 24 hours (the CABG group), whereas 30 NSTE-ACS patients who underwent PCI were included in the second group (the PCI group). Results. The mean age was 64,4±7,3 years, it was comparable in both groups. The main clinical and anamnestic characteristics of patient in both groups were comparable as well. The severity of coronary atherosclerosis according to the Syntax score was 25,6±9,2 in the CABG group, and 21,7±5,7 in the PCI group (p = 0,054). After revascularization, the residual Syntax score did not differ between the groups (p = 0,42), indicating complete revascularization. Hospital mortality was relatively high in the CABG group (13,3%), while no such cases were noted in the PCI group. Most of the patients with adverse outcomes had a critical lesion of the left main coronary artery and a complicated postoperative course. Conclusion. The results of this study demonstrate promising outcome of CABG in patients with severe multivessel coronary disease at high risk of adverse events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nishonov et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) (n=60). Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was evaluated on Hospital mortality. Coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk NSTE-ACS patients was associated with a 13.3% hospital mortality rate, compared to 0% for percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: