Radial artery grafts vs saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Arterial grafts are thought to be better conduits than saphenous vein grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) based on experience with using the left internal mammary artery to bypass the left anterior descending coronary artery. The efficacy of the radial artery graft is less clear. OBJECTIVE: To compare 1-year angiographic patency of radial artery grafts vs saphenous vein grafts in patients undergoing elective CABG. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial conducted from February 2003 to February 2009 at 11 Veterans Affairs medical centers among 757 participants (99% men) undergoing first-time elective CABG. INTERVENTIONS: The left internal mammary artery was used to preferentially graft the left anterior descending coronary artery whenever possible; the best remaining recipient vessel was randomized to radial artery vs saphenous vein graft. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was angiographic graft patency at 1 year after CABG. Secondary end points included angiographic graft patency at 1 week after CABG, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, and death. RESULTS: Analysis included 733 patients (366 in the radial artery group, 367 in the saphenous vein group). There was no significant difference in study graft patency at 1 year after CABG (radial artery, 238/266; 89%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86%-93%; saphenous vein, 239/269; 89%; 95% CI, 85%-93%; adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.56-1.74; P = .98). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points. CONCLUSION: Among Veterans Affairs patients undergoing first-time elective CABG, the use of a radial artery graft compared with saphenous vein graft did not result in greater 1-year patency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00054847.

Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafts versus percutaneous coronary intervention for revascularization of high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: A Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study randomized high-risk patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia, a group largely excluded from previous trials, to urgent revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The present study examined the cost-effectiveness of PCI versus CABG for these high-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 454 patients at 16 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, 445 were available for the economic analysis (218 PCI and 227 CABG patients). Total costs were assessed at 3 and 5 years from the third-party payer's perspective, and effectiveness was measured by survival. After 3 years, average total costs were 63,896 dollars for PCI versus 84,364 dollars for CABG patients, a difference of 20,468 dollars (95% confidence interval [CI] 13,918 dollars to 27,569 dollars). CIs were estimated by bootstrapping. Survival at 3 years was 0.82 for PCI versus 0.79 for CABG patients (P=0.34). Precision of the cost-effectiveness estimates were assessed by bootstrapping. PCI was less costly and more effective at 3 years in 92.6% of the bootstrap replications. After 5 years, average total costs were 81,790 dollars for PCI versus 100,522 dollars for CABG patients, a difference of 18,732 dollars (95% CI 9873 dollars to 27,831 dollars), whereas survival at 5 years was 0.75 for PCI patients versus 0.70 for CABG patients (P=0.21). At 5 years, PCI remained less costly and more effective in 89.4% of the bootstrap replications. CONCLUSIONS: PCI was less costly and at least as effective for the urgent revascularization of medically refractory, high-risk patients over 5 years.

Percutaneous coronary intervention of or through saphenous vein grafts or internal mammary arteries: the impact of stents, adjunctive pharmacology, and multicomponent distal protection.

We hypothesized that the use of stents and aggressive adjunctive pharmacotherapies has been associated with lower rates of complicating myocardial infarction (MI) and improved long-term outcomes compared to either previous balloon-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or atheroablative intervention for lesions of or through saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) and/or internal mammary arteries (IMAs). PCI of SVG has been complicated by relatively high rates of procedural MI and less favorable long-term outcomes than native vessel PCI, stimulating the development and application of an array of technologies. This study was based on retrospective review of stent-era (1999-2004) 5-year experience of a single center with 95 SVG procedures in 85 patients and 20 IMA procedures in 20 patients. These cases were compared with the previously published experience of one of the operators during the balloon-only period and literature review of the application of multiple technologies to SVG intervention, as well as consideration of the reoperation alternative. There was one in-hospital death each in the SVG cohort (1%) and in the IMA cohort (5%). There were SIX procedural MIs (6%), defined by total CK > normal, and 19 procedural MIs (20%) based on troponin-I > 1.0. Follow-up has been from 4 months to 5 years (average, 2.5 years), with 91% survival and one late CABG in the IMA group. SVG PCI with stents and adjunctive pharmacotherapies is associated with relatively low rates of procedural MI and favorable long-term outcomes.

Percutaneous intervention versus coronary bypass surgery for patients older than 70 years of age with high-risk unstable angina.

BACKGROUND: The Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME) study was a multicenter Veterans Affairs randomized trial and registry that compared long-term survival of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass graft surgery for the treatment of patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one additional risk factor for an adverse outcome with bypass. Both the randomized trial and the registry demonstrated comparable 3-year survival. The purpose of this study was to compare bypass and percutaneous intervention survival of AWESOME patients who were older than 70 years of age. METHODS: Over a 5-year period (1995 to 2000), 2,431 patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one of the following five risk factors (prior heart surgery, myocardial infarction within 7 days, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35%, age > 70 years, intraaortic balloon pump requirement to stabilize) were identified. Of these patients, 1,278 were older than 70 years of age. Eight hundred, seventy-one patients were turned down by at least one physician, 407 were acceptable to both physician and surgeon for randomization, and 236 (60%) consented to randomization. Of the 1,042 eligible patients who were not randomized, 871 had their revascularization directed by a physician who was not involved in the study. One hundred, seventy-one patients who were acceptable for randomization by both the interventional cardiologist and the cardiac surgeon refused consent. RESULTS: Bypass and percutaneous intervention survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log rank tests. Bypass and percutaneous intervention 36-month survival rates for patients older than 70 years of age were 76% and 75%, respectively, among the eligible patients. Survival was 71% and 78% among those patients who were randomized and 76% and 67% in the physician-directed subgroup. Of those patients who chose their revascularization techniques, the survivals were 79% and 85%, respectively. The survival differences are not large, and none of the global log rank tests of bypass compared with percutaneous intervention survival showed a statistically significant difference over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Both the randomized and registry subgroups of patients who were older than 70 years of age support the trial conclusions that either bypass or percutaneous intervention effectively relieves medically refractory ischemia among high-risk unstable angina patients whose age was greater than 70 years.

What is the evidence for percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft in ischemic cardiomyopathy?

Coronary artery disease has supplanted hypertension as the leading cause of congestive heart failure in the United States. The recognition that contraction abnormalities could accrue from gradual stunning, or longer-term 'hibernation,' raised the possibility that revascularization of viable but hypocontractile elements could improve myocardial performance. This review focuses on the data from randomized trials and registries regarding the potential benefits and risks of either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction secondary to coronary artery disease. For patients with medically refractory angina and ischemic cardiomyopathy, revascularization with CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention is recommended. The ongoing National Institutes of Health-sponsored Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial, a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial comparing contemporary medical therapy with CABG for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, should provide important information regarding patients who do not have angina. The conclusion of this review is that a trial of medical therapy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention could be of additional value, especially for patients at particularly high risk, when undergoing CABG.

Outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass grafting for patients with low left ventricular ejection fractions, unstable angina pectoris, and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass (the AWESOME Randomized Trial and Registry).

The recently concluded Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME) was a randomized clinical trial of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass graft surgery among patients with medically refractory ischemia who were at high risk for coronary bypass graft surgery because of > or =1 risk factors that included severely reduced left ventricular (LV) function, defined as LV ejection fraction <35%. This study reports the outcome of patients with LV ejection fraction <35% in the randomized clinical trial and the physician-directed and patient choice registries of the AWESOME study.

Health-related quality of life after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in high-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia.

OBJECTIVES: We compared six-month health-related quality of life (HRQL) for high-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. BACKGROUND: Mortality rates after PCI and CABG surgery are similar. Therefore, differences in HRQL outcomes may help in the selection of a revascularization procedure. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a Veterans Affairs multicenter randomized trial comparing PCI versus CABG for patients with medically refractory ischemia and one or more risk factors for adverse outcome; 389 of 423 patients (92%) alive six months after randomization completed an Short Form-36 (SF-36) health status survey. Primary outcomes were the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores from the SF-36. Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate whether PCI or CABG surgery was associated with better PCS or MCS scores after adjusting for over 20 baseline variables. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in either PCS scores (38.7 vs. 37.3 for PCI and CABG, respectively; p = 0.23) or MCS scores (45.5 vs. 46.1, p = 0.58) between the treatment arms. In multivariable models, there remained no difference in HRQL for post-PCI versus post-CABG patients (for PCS, absolute difference = 0.56 +/- standard error of 1.14, p = 0.63; for MCS, absolute difference = -1.23 +/- 1.12, p = 0.27). We had 97% power to detect a four-point difference in scores, where four to seven points is a clinically important difference. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia randomized to PCI versus CABG surgery have equivalent six-month HRQL. Therefore, HRQL concerns should not drive decision-making regarding selection of a revascularization procedure for these patients.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus repeat bypass surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia: AWESOME randomized trial and registry experience with post-CABG patients.

OBJECTIVES: This report compares long-term percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) survival among post-CABG patients included in the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME) randomized trial and prospective registry. BACKGROUND: Repeat CABG surgery is associated with a higher risk of mortality than first-time CABG. The AWESOME is the first randomized trial comparing CABG with PCI to include post-CABG patients. METHODS: Over a five-year period (1995 to 2000), patients at 16 hospitals were screened to identify a cohort of 2,431 individuals who had medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one of five high-risk factors. There were 454 patients in the randomized trial, of whom 142 had prior CABG. In the physician-directed registry of 1,650 patients, 719 had prior CABG. Of the 327 patient-choice registry patients, 119 had at least one prior CABG. The CABG and PCI survivals for the three groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: The CABG and PCI three-year survival rates were 73% and 76% respectively for the 142 randomized patients (75 and 67 patients) (log-rank = NS). In the physician-directed registry, 155 patients were assigned to reoperation and 357 to PCI (207 received medical therapy); 36-month survivals were 71% and 77% respectively (log-rank = NS). In the patient-choice registry, 32 patients chose reoperation and 74 chose PCI (13 received medical therapy); 36-month survivals were 65% and 86% respectively (log-rank test p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention is preferable to CABG for many post-CABG patients.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass graft surgery for diabetic patients with unstable angina and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: outcome of diabetic patients in the AWESOME randomized trial and registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with survival after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) among diabetics in the Veterans Affairs AWESOME (Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation) study randomized trial and registry of high-risk patients. BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that CABG may be superior to PCI for diabetics, but no comparisons have been made for diabetics at high risk for surgery. METHODS: Over five years (1995 to 2000), 2,431 patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one of five risk factors (prior CABG, myocardial infarction within seven days, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, age >70 years, or an intra-aortic balloon being required to stabilize) were identified. A total of 781 were acceptable for CABG and PCI, and 454 consented to be randomized. The 1,650 patients not acceptable for both CABG and PCI constitute the physician-directed registry, and the 327 who were acceptable but refused to be randomized constitute the patient-choice registry. Diabetes prevalence was 32% (144) among randomized patients, 27% (89) in the patient-choice registry, and 32% (525) in the physician-directed registry. The CABG and PCI survival rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: The respective CABG and PCI 36-month survival rates for diabetic patients were 72% and 81% for randomized patients, 85% and 89% for patient-choice registry patients, and 73% and 71% for the physician-directed registry patients. None of the differences was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PCI is a relatively safe alternative to CABG for diabetic patients with medically refractory unstable angina who are at high risk for CABG.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: The VA AWESOME multicenter registry: comparison with the randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the three-year survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in physician-directed and patient-choice registries with the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME) randomized trial results. BACKGROUND: The AWESOME multicenter randomized trial and registry compared the long-term survival after PCI and CABG for the treatment of patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one additional risk factor for adverse outcome with CABG. The randomized trial demonstrated comparable three-year survival. METHODS: Over a five-year period (1995 to 2000), 2,431 patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one of five risk factors (prior heart surgery, myocardial infarction within seven days, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, age >70 years, intra-aortic balloon required to stabilize) were identified. By physician consensus, 1,650 patients formed a physician-directed registry assigned to CABG (692), PCI (651) or further medical therapy (307), and 781 were angiographically eligible for random allocation; 454 of these patients constitute the randomized trial, and the remaining 327 constitute a patient choice registry. Survival for CABG and PCI was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: The CABG and PCI 36-month survival rates for randomized patients were 79% and 80%, respectively. The CABG and PCI 36-month survival rates were both 76% for the physician-directed subgroup; comparable survival rates for the patient-choice subgroup were 80% and 89%, respectively. None of the global log-rank tests for survival demonstrated significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both registries support the randomized trial conclusion: PCI is an alternative to CABG for some medically refractory high-risk patients.