Locker, Chaim

Objectives: CABG and PCI are used for revascularization of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). However, limited information is available comparing the rates of in-hospital and 30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (early MACCE), including early death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization, among patients with multiple arterial CABG (MultArt) vs PCI. Methods: We reviewed 12,615 MVCAD patients with isolated primary CABG or PCI from 1993 through 2009. CABG patients (n=6,667) were grouped by number of arterial grafts into left internal mammary artery/saphenous vein (LIMA/SV) (n=5,712) or MultArt (n=955); PCI patients (n=5,948) into balloon angioplasty (BA) (n=1,020), bare metal stent (BMS) (n=3,242), and drug-eluting stent (DES) (n=1,686). Results: Early MACCE rate was significantly greater for PCI than CABG (8.5% vs 4.1% [P<.001]) and lower for MultArt than LIMA/SV or PCI (1.5% vs 4.5% and 8.5%, respectively [P<.001]). Stroke and early death rates were higher in CABG vs PCI (2.2% vs 0.4% [P<.001], and 1.5% vs 1.0% [P=0.01], respectively), whereas MI and repeat revascularization were lower (0.5% vs 6.0% and 0.3% vs 2.2%, respectively [P<.001]). Stroke and early death were similar in MultArt and PCI and lower vs LIMA/SV (0.6% and 0.4% vs 2.6%, and 0.5% and 1.0% vs 1.7%, respectively [P<.001]); MI and repeat revascularization rates were similar in MultArt and LIMA/SV and lower vs PCI (0.4% and 0.6% vs 6.0%, and 0.3% and 0.3% vs 2.3%, respectively [P<.001]). In propensity score-matched analysis, CABG had significantly improved early MACCE rate compared with BA (4.7% vs 13.2% [P<.001]), BMS (4.3% vs 8.3% [P<.001]), and DES (2.9% vs 5.5% [P=.008]), and MultArt compared with PCI (1.8% vs 7.8% [P<.001]) fig. Conclusions: In MVCAD patients undergoing isolated primary revascularization, CABG conferred lower early MACCE rate vs PCI. Early MACCE rate was markedly decreased after MultArt compared with LIMA/SV, BA, BMS, and DES.

Introduction: We compared outcome of repeat CABG (RCABG) and PCI in patients with previous CABG. Hypothesis: RCABG may improve survival versus PCI. Methods: From 1993 through 2009, 3,058 patients underwent revascularization after previous CABG. RCABG patients (n=530) were grouped by the use of arterial grafts (n=396), or saphenous vein grafts (SVG; n=134). At previous CABG, 37% of RCABG patients received IMA graft. PCI patients (n=2,528) were grouped into balloon angioplasty (BA; n=491), bare metal stent (BMS; n=1,267), and drug-eluting stent (DES; n=769). PCI patients were further stratified by the treated target into native coronary artery (n=1,637), bypass grafts (n=674), or both (n=216). Propensity score analysis matched 287 patients. Results: RCABG had increased 30-day mortality compared with PCI (HR=3.92; 95% CI, 2.25-6.84; P <.001) in multivariable analysis, while in propensity matched analysis it did not ( P =.09). Overall survival, however, was greater for RCABG compared with PCI in multivariable analysis (HR=0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83; P <.001), as well as in propensity matched analysis (10-year survival rates were 52% vs 37%, respectively [ P =.005]). Compared with RCABG, PCI involving bypass grafts had increased mortality (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78; P =.008), whereas PCI targeting only the native coronaries did not (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.47; P =.43); BMS patients had increased mortality (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.68; P =.013), but DES did not (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.77-2.12; P =.35). At RCABG, 318 patients (60%) received an IMA graft and late survival was similar to those receiving SVG; The use of IMA in previous CABG was associated with improved survival (HR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92; P <.001]. Conclusions: Long-term survival after previous CABG is improved with RCABG compared to PCI, especially when PCI involves bypass grafts. There is no difference in long-term survival between RCABG using arterial grafts vs SVG only if IMA is used in either previous or RCABG.

Objectives. The use of the left internal mammary artery (IMA) in revascularization of multivessel coronary artery disease has been shown to improve survival following coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), however the incremental survival benefit of multiple arterial grafts is still debated. Methods. We reviewed outcome of 8,622 pt that had isolated primary CABG for multivessel disease from 1993 to 2009.Pt were stratified according to the number of arterial grafts; (1) single IMA plus saphenous vein (SV) IMA/SV group (n=7,435; 83% 3VD) and (2) multiple arterial (MultArt) group (n=1,187; 74% 3VD) Results. Early mortality rate was 0.8% (n=10) in the MultArt group and 2.1% (n=154) in the IMA/SV group (P=0.004). However, the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.996) after adjusting for age, gender, chronic lung disease, renal failure, PVD, MI, EF, and number of diseased vessels. Late survival was significantly greater for the MultArt group compared to IMA/SV group (5-, 10- and 15-year survival rates were 95%, 84% and 71% versus 85%, 61% and 35% p<0.001). MultArt subgroups with the use of bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA)/SV (n=589) and BIMA only (n=271), had significantly improved 15-years survival (97%, 86%, 76% and 94%, 82%, 75% at 5-, 10- and 15-years, p<0.001), and BIMA/RA (n=147) and LIMA/RA (n=169), had significantly greater 10-years survival (95%, 84% and 93%, 78% at 5- and 10-years, p<0.001) compared to IMA/SV group. In multivariate analysis, use of multiple arterial grafts remained a strong independent predictor of survival (HR=0.78, 95% CI 0.66 - 0.93, p=0.006). Conclusion. Use of the right IMA or radial artery in addition to the left IMA is associated with significantly better overall and late survival compared with single IMA and saphenous vein in patients with two and three-vessel disease undergoing isolated CABG.

Background The study compared downstream coronary and conduit disease progression in the left anterior descending coronary artery treated with coronary artery bypass grafting using the left internal mammary artery ( LIMA ) versus percutaneous coronary intervention with bare metal stent ( BMS ) or drug eluting stent ( DES ). Methods and Results A total of 12 301 consecutive patients underwent isolated primary coronary revascularization, of which 2386 met our inclusion criteria (Percutaneous coronary intervention, n=1450; coronary artery bypass grafting, n=936). Propensity score analysis matched 628 patients, of which 468 were treated to the left anterior descending with coronary artery bypass grafting with LIMA (n=314), percutaneous coronary intervention with BMS (n=94), and DES (n=60). Coronary angiograms were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography ( QCA ; n=433). Cumulative downstream coronary and conduit disease progression were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method and effect of treatment type by Cox proportional hazard models. Patients treated with LIMA had significantly lower risk of downstream coronary disease progression at follow‐up angiogram compared with BMS and DES (hazard ratio [ HR ] [95% CI ], 0.34; [0.20–0.59]; P =0.0002; and HR [95% CI ], 0.39; [0.20–0.79]; P =0.01, respectively). LIMA was associated with a lower risk of conduit disease progression compared to BMS and DES ( HR [95% CI ], 0.18; [0.12–0.28]; P <0.001; and HR [95% CI ], 0.27; [0.16–0.46]; P <0.001, respectively). BMS was associated with higher HR for downstream coronary and conduit disease progression compared with DES , but the difference did not reach statistical significance ( HR [95% CI], 1.13; [0.57–2.36]; P =0.73; and HR [95% CI ], 1.46; [0.88–2.50]; P =0.14, respectively). Conclusions LIMA grafting to left anterior descending is associated with significantly lower risk of downstream coronary and conduit disease progression compared to percutaneous coronary intervention with BMS and DES .

Background— Use of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) in multivessel coronary artery disease improves survival after coronary artery bypass graft surgery; however, the survival benefit of multiple arterial (MultArt) grafts is debated. Methods and Results— We reviewed 8622 Mayo Clinic patients who had isolated primary coronary artery bypass graft surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease from 1993 to 2009. Patients were stratified by number of arterial grafts into the LIMA plus saphenous veins (LIMA/SV) group (n=7435) or the MultArt group (n=1187). Propensity score analysis matched 1153 patients. Operative mortality was 0.8% (n=10) in the MultArt and 2.1% (n=154) in the LIMA/SV ( P =0.005) group, which was not statistically different ( P =0.996) in multivariate analysis or the propensity-matched analysis ( P =0.818). Late survival was greater for MultArt versus LIMA/SV (10- and 15-year survival rates were 84% and 71% versus 61% and 36%, respectively [ P <0.001], in unmatched groups and 83% and 70% versus 80% and 60%, respectively [ P =0.0025], in matched groups). MultArt subgroups with bilateral internal mammary artery/SV (n=589) and bilateral internal mammary artery only (n=271) had improved 15-year survival (86% and 76%; 82% and 75% at 10 and 15 years [ P <0.001]), and patients with bilateral internal mammary artery/radial artery (n=147) and LIMA/radial artery (n=169) had greater 10-year survival (84% and 78%; P <0.001) versus LIMA/SV. In multivariate analysis, MultArt grafts remained a strong independent predictor of survival (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–0.94; P =0.007). Conclusions— In patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery with LIMA to left anterior descending artery, arterial grafting of the non–left anterior descending vessels conferred a survival advantage at 15 years compared with SV grafting. It is still unproven whether these results apply to higher-risk subgroups of patients.