Coronary artery bypass vs percutaneous coronary intervention in under 50s.

BACKGROUND: Young patients with coronary artery disease are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) primarily, with a view to deferring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We investigated the validity of this approach, by comparing outcomes in patients ≤50 years undergoing CABG or PCI. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients undergoing PCI and 100 undergoing CABG in 2004 were retrospectively studied to allow for 5 and 12 years follow-up. The two groups were compared for the primary endpoints of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE). RESULTS: Diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% were higher in the CABG group. At 5 years, rates of myocardial infarction (MI) (9% vs 1%, P = .02), repeat revascularization (31% vs 7%, P < .01), and MACCE (34 vs 12, P < .01) were greater in the PCI vs the CABG group. Similarly, at 12 years, rates of MI (27.4% vs 19.4%, P = .19), repeat revascularization (41.1% vs 20.4%, P < .01), and MACCE (51 vs 40, P = .07) were greater in the PCI group. There were no differences in major outcomes in patients with 1 or 2VD, at 5 or 12 years. Rates of MI, revascularization, and MACCE were higher in patients with 3VD undergoing PCI (n = 21; MI, 47.6%; revascularization, 66.7%; and MACCE, 19 events) vs CABG (n = 78; MI, 19.2%; revascularization, 20.5%; and MACCE, 31 events); P < .01, for all end points. CONCLUSIONS: MACCE was lower in young patients undergoing CABG vs PCI at both 5 and 12 years follow-up, primarily as a consequence of patients with 3VD undergoing PCI having more MI and repeat revascularization. CABG should remain the preferred method of revascularization in young patients with 3VD.

CT angiography to evaluate coronary artery disease and revascularization requirement before trans-catheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis share pathophysiological mechanisms and risk factors. We evaluated the clinical utility of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) to identify CAD and revascularization requirement in patients with severe aortic stenosis considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: Consecutive patients without known CAD underwent calcium scoring, CTA and invasive coronary angiography (ICA). A second-generation dual-source CT scanner was used. ICA-quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) served as reference standard. CAD was reported using a lenient threshold of ≥50% and a stricter threshold of ≥70% diameter reduction. Findings of ≥70% diameter reduction and of high-risk CAD were used to predict revascularization. RESULTS: The study included 140 patients [68 males; 82.3 (7.7) years]. CAD defined by the 50% threshold on ICA was found in 58/140 (41%) patients. CAD by the 70% threshold was found in 23/140 (16%) patients. High-risk CAD was found in 16/140 (11%) patients. CTA and ICA had similar odd-ratios of 3.22 (1.26-8.23) and 4.62 (1.64-13.05), respectively, in predicting revascularization. Forty-two/140 (30%) patients had <400 Agatston calcium score, 98/140 (70%) patients had ≥400 calcium score. The diagnostic performance of CTA in the low calcium score group was better than the high calcium score group (AUC 0.81 vs. 0.63). CONCLUSION: CTA remained questionable to rule-out CAD as gatekeeper to ICA in TAVR candidates who had severe coronary calcifications. In patients with less severe coronary calcifications, accounting for 30% of participants in this study, CTA may play a clinical role.