The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The optimal revascularization strategy for coronary artery disease depends on various factors, such as disease complexity, patient characteristics, and preferences. Including a heart team in complex cases is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes. Decision-making between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting must consider each patient's clinical profile and coronary anatomy. While current practice guidelines offer some insight into the optimal revascularization approach for the various phenotypes of coronary artery disease, the evidence to support either strategy continues to evolve and grow. Given the large amount of contemporary data on revascularization, this review aims to comprehensively summarize the literature on coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients across the spectrum of coronary artery disease phenotypes. RECENT FINDINGS: Contemporary evidence suggests that for patients with triple vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting is preferred over percutaneous coronary intervention due to better long-term outcomes, including lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Similarly, for patients with left main coronary artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting can be considered, as they have shown similar efficacy in terms of major adverse cardiac events, but there may be a slightly higher risk of death with percutaneous coronary intervention. For proximal left anterior descending artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are viable options, but coronary artery bypass grafting has shown lower rates of repeat revascularization and better relief from angina. The Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score can help in decision-making by predicting the risk of adverse events and guiding the choice between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. European and American guidelines both agree with including a heart team that can develop and lay out individualized, optimal treatment options with respect for patient preferences. The debate between coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in multiple different scenarios will continue to develop as technology and techniques improve for both procedures. Risk factors, pre, peri, and post-procedural complications involved in both revascularization strategies will continue to be mitigated to optimize outcomes for those patients for which coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention provide ultimate benefit. Methods to avoid unnecessary revascularization continue to develop as well as percutaneous technology that may allow patients to avoid surgical intervention when possible. With such changes, revascularization guidelines for specific patient populations may change in the coming years, which can serve as a limitation of this time-dated review.

Underrepresentation of Women in Revascularization Trials.

This Viewpoint discusses the unequal representation of women in coronary revascularization trials in the US, its negative effects on the cardiovascular health of both sexes, and potential mechanisms to ensure appropriate representation of women moving forward.

Temporal Trends in Cardiovascular Disease Prevalence Among Asian American Subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Asian and multiracial individuals represent the 2 fastest growing racial and ethnic groups in the United States, yet most prior studies report Asian American and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander as a single racial group, with limited data on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevalence among subgroups. We sought to evaluate temporal trends in CVD burden among disaggregated Asian subgroups. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with CVD based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision (ICD-9 and ICD-10) coding who received care from a mixed-payer health care organization in California between 2008 and 2018 were classified into self-identified racial and ethnic subgroups (non-Hispanic White [NHW], Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial groups). Adjusted trends in CVD prevalence over time by subgroup were compared using logistic regression. Among 3 494 071 patient-years, prevalence of CVD increased faster among all subgroups except Japanese and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients (P<0.01 for each, reference: NHW). Filipino patients had the highest overall CVD prevalence, which increased from 34.3% to 45.1% over 11 years (increase from 17.3%-21.9%, P<0.0001, reference: NHW). Asian Indian patients had the fastest increase in CVD prevalence over time (16.9%-23.7%, P<0.0001, reference: NHW). Among subcategories of disease, hypertension increased faster among Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, and multiracial groups (P<0.01 for all, reference: NHW), and coronary artery disease increased faster among Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, and Japanese groups (P<0.05 for each, reference: NHW). CONCLUSIONS: The increasing prevalence of CVD among disaggregated Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial subgroups over time highlights the importance of tailored approaches to addressing CVD in these diverse subpopulations.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Aortic Valve Replacement Among Medicare Beneficiaries in the United States, 2012-2019.

PURPOSE: There are concerns that transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) procedures are preferentially available to White patients. Our objective was to examine differences in utilization of aortic valve replacement and outcomes by race/ethnicity in the US for patients with aortic stenosis. METHODS: We performed a serial cross-sectional cohort study of 299,976 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with principal diagnosis of aortic stenosis between 2012 and 2019 stratified by self-reported race/ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and White). Outcomes included aortic valve replacement rates within 6 months of index hospitalization and associated procedural outcomes, including 30-day readmission, 30-day and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Within 6 months of an index admission for aortic stenosis, 86.8% (122,457 SAVR; 138,026 TAVR) patients underwent aortic valve replacement. Overall, compared with White people, Black (HR 0.87 [0.85-0.89]), Hispanic (0.92 [0.88-0.96]), and Asian (0.95 [0.91-0.99]) people were less likely to receive aortic valve replacement. Among patients who were admitted emergently/urgently, White patients (41.1%, 95% CI, 40.7-41.4) had a significantly higher aortic valve replacement rate compared with Black (29.6%, 95% CI, 28.3-30.9), Hispanic (36.6%, 95% CI, 34.0-39.3), and Asian patients (35.4%, 95% CI, 32.3-38.9). Aortic valve replacement rates increased annually for all race/ethnicities. There were no significant differences in 30-day or 1-year mortality by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve replacement rates within 6 months of aortic stenosis admission are lower for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people compared to White people. These race-related differences in aortic stenosis treatment reflect complex issues in diagnosis and management, warranting a comprehensive reassessment of the entire care spectrum for disadvantaged populations.

Myocardial Infarction Across COVID-19 Pandemic Phases: Insights From the Veterans Health Affairs System.

Background Cardiovascular procedural treatments were deferred at scale during the COVID-19 pandemic, with unclear impact on patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Methods and Results In a retrospective cohort study of all patients diagnosed with NSTEMI in the US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System from January 1, 2019 to October 30, 2022 (n=67 125), procedural treatments and outcomes were compared between the prepandemic period and 6 unique pandemic phases: (1) acute phase, (2) community spread, (3) first peak, (4) post vaccine, (5) second peak, and (6) recovery. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the association between pandemic phases and 30-day mortality. NSTEMI volumes dropped significantly with the pandemic onset (62.7% of prepandemic peak) and did not revert to prepandemic levels in subsequent phases, even after vaccine availability. Percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting volumes declined proportionally. Compared with the prepandemic period, patients with NSTEMI experienced higher 30-day mortality during Phases 2 and 3, even after adjustment for COVID-19-positive status, demographics, baseline comorbidities, and receipt of procedural treatment (adjusted odds ratio for Phases 2 and 3 combined, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.13-1.43], P<0.01). Patients receiving Veterans Affairs-paid community care had a higher adjusted risk of 30-day mortality compared with those at Veterans Affairs hospitals across all 6 pandemic phases. Conclusions Higher mortality after NSTEMI occurred during the initial spread and first peak of the pandemic but resolved before the second, higher peak-suggesting effective adaptation of care delivery but a costly delay to implementation. Investigation into the vulnerabilities of the early pandemic spread are vital to informing future resource-constrained practices.

Considerations on the Management of Acute Postoperative Ischemia After Cardiac Surgery: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Acute postoperative myocardial ischemia (PMI) after cardiac surgery is an infrequent event that can evolve rapidly and become a potentially life-threatening complication. Multiple factors are associated with acute PMI after cardiac surgery and may vary by the type of surgical procedure performed. Although the criteria defining nonprocedural myocardial ischemia are well established, there are no universally accepted criteria for the diagnosis of acute PMI. In addition, current evidence on the management of acute PMI after cardiac surgery is sparse and generally of low methodological quality. Once acute PMI is suspected, prompt diagnosis and treatment are imperative, and options range from conservative strategies to percutaneous coronary intervention and redo coronary artery bypass grafting. In this document, a multidisciplinary group including experts in cardiac surgery, cardiology, anesthesiology, and postoperative care summarizes the existing evidence on diagnosis and treatment of acute PMI and provides clinical guidance.

Temporal trends in transcatheter aortic valve replacement use and outcomes by race, ethnicity, and sex.

OBJECTIVES: To identify trends in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use and outcomes by race (non-Hispanic White, Black), ethnicity (Hispanic), and sex over time. BACKGROUND: Despite rapid growth in TAVR use over time, our understanding of its use and outcomes among males and females of underrepresented racial/ethnic groups remains limited. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of hospitalizations from 2013 to 2017 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database was performed. RESULTS: White patients comprised 65% (n = 2.16 × 107 ) of all hospitalizations, yet they comprised 83% (n = 176,887) of the admissions for aortic stenosis (p < 0.0001). Among 91,693 hospitalizations for aortic valve replacement, 64,069 were surgical (34.0% female, 7.0% Hispanic, and 5.9% Black) and 27,624 were transcatheter (46.6% female, 4.5% Hispanic, and 4.4% Black). Growth in TAVR volumes was the slowest among minorities and females. Hispanic males, Hispanic females, and White females had the highest in-hospital mortality (2.7%-3.3%; compared to White males, adjusted odds ratio: Hispanic males 1.9 [1.2-3.0], Hispanic females 1.9 [1.2-3.1], and White females 1.4 [1.2-1.7]). Despite less baseline vascular disease, females of all races/ethnicities had more vascular complications than men (female 5% vs. male 3.5%, p ≤ 0.001). Further adjustment for vascular complications only partially attenuated mortality differences. Black and Hispanic patients had a longer mean length of hospital stay than White patients, which was most pronounced among females. Pacemaker requirements were consistently low among all groups. CONCLUSION: Differences in TAVR growth and outcomes by race, ethnicity, and sex over time highlight areas for focused efforts to close gaps in minimally invasive structural heart disease care.

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery After Transradial Catheterization: Implementing 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Revascularization Guidelines Into Clinical Practice.

The 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI coronary artery disease revascularization guideline recommends radial artery (RA) access for coronary angiography and RA grafting over saphenous vein grafting in patients referred for coronary artery bypass grafting. We present a case of a patient who underwent coronary angiography via both RAs and therefore could not receive RA bypass grafts. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.