RESUMEN
AIMS: To compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treatment of patients with heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed all-cause mortality following CABG or PCI in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and multivessel disease (coronary artery stenosis >50% in ≥2 vessels or left main) who underwent coronary angiography between 2000 and 2018 in Sweden. We used a propensity score-adjusted logistic and Cox proportional-hazards regressions and instrumental variable model to adjust for known and unknown confounders. Multilevel modelling was used to adjust for the clustering of observations in a hierarchical database. In total, 2509 patients (82.9% men) were included; 35.8% had diabetes and 34.7% had a previous myocardial infarction. The mean age was 68.1 ± 9.4 years (47.8% were >70 years old), and 64.9% had three-vessel or left main disease. Primary designated therapy was PCI in 56.2% and CABG in 43.8%. Median follow-up time was 3.9 years (range 1 day to 10 years). There were 1010 deaths. Risk of death was lower after CABG than after PCI [odds ratio (OR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.96; P = 0.031]. The risk of death increased linearly with quintiles of hospitals in which PCI was the preferred method for revascularization (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17-1.38, Ptrend < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with ischaemic heart failure, long-term survival was greater after CABG than after PCI.