Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy: long-term survival.

IF 37.6 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Jason E Bloom, Sara Vogrin, Christopher M Reid, Andrew E Ajani, David J Clark, Melanie Freeman, Chin Hiew, Angela Brennan, Diem Dinh, Jenni Williams-Spence, Luke P Dawson, Samer Noaman, Derek P Chew, Ernesto Oqueli, Nicholas Cox, David McGiffin, Silvana Marasco, Peter Skillington, Alistair Royse, Dion Stub, David M Kaye, William Chan
{"title":"Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy: long-term survival.","authors":"Jason E Bloom, Sara Vogrin, Christopher M Reid, Andrew E Ajani, David J Clark, Melanie Freeman, Chin Hiew, Angela Brennan, Diem Dinh, Jenni Williams-Spence, Luke P Dawson, Samer Noaman, Derek P Chew, Ernesto Oqueli, Nicholas Cox, David McGiffin, Silvana Marasco, Peter Skillington, Alistair Royse, Dion Stub, David M Kaye, William Chan","doi":"10.1093/eurheartj/ehae672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy remains unclear with no contemporary randomized trial data to guide clinical practice. This study aims to assess long-term survival in patients with severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy revascularized by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons and Melbourne Interventional Group registries (from January 2005 to 2018), patients with severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%] undergoing PCI or isolated CABG were included in the analysis. Those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were excluded. The primary outcome was long-term National Death Index-linked mortality up to 10 years following revascularization. Risk adjustment was performed to estimate the average treatment effect using propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2042 patients were included, of whom 1451 patients were treated by CABG and 591 by PCI. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted demographics, procedural indication, coronary artery disease extent, and LVEF were well balanced between the two patient groups. After risk adjustment, patients treated by CABG compared with those treated by PCI experienced reduced long-term mortality [adjusted hazard ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.79, P = .001] over a median follow-up period of 4.0 (inter-quartile range 2.2-6.8) years. There was no difference between the groups in terms of in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.41-4.96, P = .58], but there was an increased risk of peri-procedural stroke (aOR 19.6, 95% CI 4.21-91.6, P < .001) and increased length of hospital stay (exponentiated coefficient 3.58, 95% CI 3.00-4.28, P < .001) in patients treated with CABG.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this multi-centre IPTW analysis, patients with severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy undergoing revascularization by CABG rather than PCI showed improved long-term survival. However, future randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the effect of any such benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":11976,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":37.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae672","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy remains unclear with no contemporary randomized trial data to guide clinical practice. This study aims to assess long-term survival in patients with severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy revascularized by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: Using the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons and Melbourne Interventional Group registries (from January 2005 to 2018), patients with severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%] undergoing PCI or isolated CABG were included in the analysis. Those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were excluded. The primary outcome was long-term National Death Index-linked mortality up to 10 years following revascularization. Risk adjustment was performed to estimate the average treatment effect using propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

Results: A total of 2042 patients were included, of whom 1451 patients were treated by CABG and 591 by PCI. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted demographics, procedural indication, coronary artery disease extent, and LVEF were well balanced between the two patient groups. After risk adjustment, patients treated by CABG compared with those treated by PCI experienced reduced long-term mortality [adjusted hazard ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.79, P = .001] over a median follow-up period of 4.0 (inter-quartile range 2.2-6.8) years. There was no difference between the groups in terms of in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.41-4.96, P = .58], but there was an increased risk of peri-procedural stroke (aOR 19.6, 95% CI 4.21-91.6, P < .001) and increased length of hospital stay (exponentiated coefficient 3.58, 95% CI 3.00-4.28, P < .001) in patients treated with CABG.

Conclusions: In this multi-centre IPTW analysis, patients with severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy undergoing revascularization by CABG rather than PCI showed improved long-term survival. However, future randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the effect of any such benefits.

严重缺血性心肌病的冠状动脉旁路移植术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:长期存活率。
背景和目的:缺血性心肌病患者的最佳血管重建策略仍不明确,也没有当代随机试验数据来指导临床实践。本研究旨在评估严重缺血性心肌病患者通过冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)或经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)进行血管重建后的长期存活率:方法:利用澳大利亚和新西兰心脏与胸外科医师学会以及墨尔本介入治疗小组的登记资料(2005年1月至2018年),对严重缺血性心肌病患者[左心室射血分数(LVEF) 结果]进行研究:共纳入 2042 名患者,其中 1451 名患者接受了 CABG 治疗,591 名患者接受了 PCI 治疗。经过人口统计学、手术适应症、冠状动脉疾病程度和 LVEF 的治疗加权调整后,两组患者的逆概率非常均衡。经风险调整后,在中位随访 4.0 年(四分位间范围 2.2-6.8)期间,接受 CABG 治疗的患者与接受 PCI 治疗的患者相比,长期死亡率降低[调整后危险比为 0.59,95% 置信区间 (CI) 为 0.45-0.79,P = .001]。两组患者的院内死亡率无差异[调整后的几率比(aOR)1.42,95% CI 0.41-4.96,P = .58],但接受 CABG 治疗的患者发生围手术期中风的风险增加(aOR 19.6,95% CI 4.21-91.6,P < .001),住院时间延长(指数系数 3.58,95% CI 3.00-4.28,P < .001):在这项多中心 IPTW 分析中,接受 CABG 而非 PCI 血管重建术的严重缺血性心肌病患者的长期生存率有所提高。然而,还需要未来的随机对照试验来证实这些益处的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Heart Journal
European Heart Journal 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
39.30
自引率
6.90%
发文量
3942
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The European Heart Journal is a renowned international journal that focuses on cardiovascular medicine. It is published weekly and is the official journal of the European Society of Cardiology. This peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing high-quality clinical and scientific material pertaining to all aspects of cardiovascular medicine. It covers a diverse range of topics including research findings, technical evaluations, and reviews. Moreover, the journal serves as a platform for the exchange of information and discussions on various aspects of cardiovascular medicine, including educational matters. In addition to original papers on cardiovascular medicine and surgery, the European Heart Journal also presents reviews, clinical perspectives, ESC Guidelines, and editorial articles that highlight recent advancements in cardiology. Additionally, the journal actively encourages readers to share their thoughts and opinions through correspondence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信