Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Disease With and Without Diabetes: Findings From a Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes may be associated with differential outcomes in patients undergoing left main coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes in patients with left main disease with and without diabetes randomized to PCI versus CABG. METHODS: Individual patient data were pooled from 4 trials (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery], PRECOMBAT [Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease], NOBLE [Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularisation Study], and EXCEL [Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization]) that randomized patients with left main disease to PCI or CABG. Patients were considered suitable for either approach. Patients were categorized by diabetes status. Kaplan-Meier event rates, Cox model hazard ratios, and interactions were assessed. RESULTS: Among 4393 patients, 1104 (25.1%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes experienced higher rates of 5-year death (158/1104 [Kaplan-Meier rate, 14.7%] versus 297/3289 [9.3%]; P<0.001), spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI; 67/1104 [6.7%] versus 114/3289 [3.7%]; P<0.001), and repeat revascularization (189/1104 [18.5%] versus 410/3289 [13.2%]; P<0.001). Rates of all-cause mortality did not differ after PCI versus CABG in those with (84/563 [15.3%] versus 74/541 [14.1%]; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.82-1.52]) or without (155/1634 [9.7%] versus 142/1655 [8.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.86-1.36; PintHR=0.87) diabetes. Rates of stroke within 1 year were lower with PCI versus CABG in the entire population, with no heterogeneity based on diabetes status (PintHR=0.51). The 5-year rates of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization were higher after PCI regardless of diabetes status (spontaneous MI: 45/563 [8.9%] versus 22/541 [4.4%] in diabetes and 82/1634 [5.3%] versus 32/1655 [2.1%] in no diabetes, PintHR=0.47; repeat revascularization: 127/563 [24.5%] versus 62/541 [12.4%] in diabetes and 254/1634 [16.3%] versus 156/1655 [10.1%] in no diabetes, PintHR=0.18). For spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization, there were greater absolute risk differences beyond 1 year in patients with diabetes (4.9% and 9.9%) compared with those without (2.1% and 4.3%; PintARD=0.047 and 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left main disease considered equally suitable for PCI or CABG and with largely low to intermediate SYNTAX scores, diabetes was associated with higher rates of death and cardiovascular events through 5 years. Compared with CABG, PCI resulted in no difference in the risk of death and a lower risk of early stroke regardless of diabetes status, and a higher risk of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization, with larger late absolute excess risks in patients with diabetes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01205776, NCT0146651, NCT00422968, and NCT00114972.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease is uncertain. We therefore aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes for patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database using the search terms "left main", "percutaneous coronary intervention" or "stent", and "coronary artery bypass graft*" to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between database inception and Aug 31, 2021, comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG in patients with left main coronary artery disease that had at least 5 years of patient follow-up for all-cause mortality. Two authors (MSS and BAB) identified studies meeting the criteria. The primary endpoint was 5-year all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, procedural myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularisation. We used a one-stage approach; event rates were calculated by use of the Kaplan-Meier method and treatment group comparisons were made by use of a Cox frailty model, with trial as a random effect. In Bayesian analyses, the probabilities of absolute risk differences in the primary endpoint between PCI and CABG being more than 0·0%, and at least 1·0%, 2·5%, or 5·0%, were calculated. FINDINGS: Our literature search yielded 1599 results, of which four RCTs-SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL-meeting our inclusion criteria were included in our meta-analysis. 4394 patients, with a median SYNTAX score of 25·0 (IQR 18·0-31·0), were randomly assigned to PCI (n=2197) or CABG (n=2197). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of 5-year all-cause death was 11·2% (95% CI 9·9-12·6) with PCI and 10·2% (9·0-11·6) with CABG (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·33), resulting in a non-statistically significant absolute risk difference of 0·9% (95% CI -0·9 to 2·8). In Bayesian analyses, there was an 85·7% probability that death at 5 years was greater with PCI than with CABG; this difference was more likely than not less than 1·0% (<0·2% per year). The numerical difference in mortality was comprised more of non-cardiovascular than cardiovascular death. Spontaneous myocardial infarction (6·2%, 95% CI 5·2-7·3 vs 2·6%, 2·0-3·4; hazard ratio [HR] 2·35, 95% CI 1·71-3·23; p<0·0001) and repeat revascularisation (18·3%, 16·7-20·0 vs 10·7%, 9·4-12·1; HR 1·78, 1·51-2·10; p<0·0001) were more common with PCI than with CABG. Differences in procedural myocardial infarction between strategies depended on the definition used. Overall, there was no difference in the risk of stroke between PCI (2·7%, 2·0-3·5) and CABG (3·1%, 2·4-3·9; HR 0·84, 0·59-1·21; p=0·36), but the risk was lower with PCI in the first year after randomisation (HR 0·37, 0·19-0·69). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with left main coronary artery disease and, largely, low or intermediate coronary anatomical complexity, there was no statistically significant difference in 5-year all-cause death between PCI and CABG, although a Bayesian approach suggested a difference probably exists (more likely than not <0·2% per year) favouring CABG. There were trade-offs in terms of the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularisation. A heart team approach to communicate expected outcome differences might be useful to assist patients in reaching a treatment decision. FUNDING: No external funding.

Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents, as compared with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with left main coronary artery disease are not clearly established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity (according to assessment at the participating centers) to undergo either PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: At 5 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 22.0% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.2% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.9 to 6.5; P = 0.13). Death from any cause occurred more frequently in the PCI group than in the CABG group (in 13.0% vs. 9.9%; difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.1). In the PCI and CABG groups, the incidences of definite cardiovascular death (5.0% and 4.5%, respectively; difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.5) and myocardial infarction (10.6% and 9.1%; difference, 1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 4.2) were not significantly different. All cerebrovascular events were less frequent after PCI than after CABG (3.3% vs. 5.2%; difference, -1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to 0), although the incidence of stroke was not significantly different between the two groups (2.9% and 3.7%; difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.4 to 0.9). Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequent after PCI than after CABG (16.9% vs. 10.0%; difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.7 to 10.0). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity, there was no significant difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776.).

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial.

BACKGROUND: The Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial was a non-inferiority trial that compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease, and reported results up to 5 years. We now report 10-year all-cause death results. METHODS: The SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study is an investigator-driven extension of follow-up of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 85 hospitals across 18 North American and European countries. Patients with de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to the PCI group or CABG group. Patients with a history of PCI or CABG, acute myocardial infarction, or an indication for concomitant cardiac surgery were excluded. The primary endpoint of the SYNTAXES study was 10-year all-cause death, which was assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed according to the presence or absence of left main coronary artery disease and diabetes, and according to coronary complexity defined by core laboratory SYNTAX score tertiles. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03417050. FINDINGS: From March, 2005, to April, 2007, 1800 patients were randomly assigned to the PCI (n=903) or CABG (n=897) group. Vital status information at 10 years was complete for 841 (93%) patients in the PCI group and 848 (95%) patients in the CABG group. At 10 years, 248 (28%) patients had died after PCI and 212 (24%) after CABG (hazard ratio 1·19 [95% CI 0·99-1·43], p=0·066). Among patients with three-vessel disease, 153 (28%) of 546 had died after PCI versus 114 (21%) of 549 after CABG (hazard ratio 1·42 [95% CI 1·11-1·81]), and among patients with left main coronary artery disease, 95 (27%) of 357 had died after PCI versus 98 (28%) of 348 after CABG (0·92 [0·69-1·22], pinteraction=0·023). There was no treatment-by-subgroup interaction with diabetes (pinteraction=0·60) and no linear trend across SYNTAX score tertiles (ptrend=0·20). INTERPRETATION: At 10 years, no significant difference existed in all-cause death between PCI using first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents and CABG. However, CABG provided a significant survival benefit in patients with three-vessel disease, but not in patients with left main coronary artery disease. FUNDING: German Foundation of Heart Research (SYNTAXES study, 5-10-year follow-up) and Boston Scientific Corporation (SYNTAX study, 0-5-year follow-up).

Standardized Definition of Structural Valve Degeneration for Surgical and Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves.

Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses.

Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obstructive left main coronary artery disease are usually treated with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). Randomized trials have suggested that drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative to CABG in selected patients with left main coronary disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1905 eligible patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity to undergo either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). Anatomic complexity was assessed at the sites and defined by a Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score of 32 or lower (the SYNTAX score reflects a comprehensive angiographic assessment of the coronary vasculature, with 0 as the lowest score and higher scores [no upper limit] indicating more complex coronary anatomy). The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years, and the trial was powered for noninferiority testing of the primary end point (noninferiority margin, 4.2 percentage points). Major secondary end points included the rate of a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days and the rate of a composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years. Event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. RESULTS: At 3 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 15.4% of the patients in the PCI group and in 14.7% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 0.7 percentage points; upper 97.5% confidence limit, 4.0 percentage points; P=0.02 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.26; P=0.98 for superiority). The secondary end-point event of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the PCI group and in 7.9% in the CABG group (P<0.001 for noninferiority, P=0.008 for superiority). The secondary end-point event of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years occurred in 23.1% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.1% in the CABG group (P=0.01 for noninferiority, P=0.10 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left main coronary artery disease and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores by site assessment, PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to CABG with respect to the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776 .).

Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement.

Mechanical valves used for aortic valve replacement (AVR) continue to be associated with bleeding risks because of anticoagulation therapy, while bioprosthetic valves are at risk of structural valve deterioration requiring reoperation. This risk/benefit ratio of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves has led American and European guidelines on valvular heart disease to be consistent in recommending the use of mechanical prostheses in patients younger than 60 years of age. Despite these recommendations, the use of bioprosthetic valves has significantly increased over the last decades in all age groups. A systematic review of manuscripts applying propensity-matching or multivariable analysis to compare the usage of mechanical vs. bioprosthetic valves found either similar outcomes between the two types of valves or favourable outcomes with mechanical prostheses, particularly in younger patients. The risk/benefit ratio and choice of valves will be impacted by developments in valve designs, anticoagulation therapy, reducing the required international normalized ratio, and transcatheter and minimally invasive procedures. However, there is currently no evidence to support lowering the age threshold for implanting a bioprosthesis. Physicians in the Heart Team and patients should be cautious in pursuing more bioprosthetic valve use until its benefit is clearly proven in middle-aged patients.

Considerations and Recommendations for the Introduction of Objective Performance Criteria for Transcatheter Aortic Heart Valve Device Approval.

In the United States, new surgical heart valves can be approved on the basis of objective performance criteria (OPC). In contrast, the US Food and Drug Administration traditionally requires stricter criteria for transcatheter heart valve (THV) approval, including randomized, clinical trials. Recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of new-generation THVs based on single-arm studies has generated interest in alternative study approaches for THV device approval. This review evaluates whether THV device approval could follow a pathway analogous to that of surgical heart valves by incorporating OPC and provides several considerations and recommendations. Factors to be taken into account in the construction of OPC include the maturity of THV technology, variability in transcatheter aortic valve replacement practice, end points included as OPC, follow-up terms for specific OPC, patient populations to which these OPC apply, and (statistical) methods for OPC development. We recommend that approval of THV devices in the United States for low- and intermediate-risk patients or for new indications should provisionally rely on data from randomized, clinical trials. However, it is recommended that formal OPC be applied for approval of new-generation THVs for use in high- and extreme-risk patient populations.

Revascularization Options: Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CAGB) is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in reducing mortality in certain patients and improving the composite end points of angina, recurrent myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization procedures. However, CABG is associated with a higher perioperative stroke risk. For patients with less complex disease or left main coronary disease, PCI is an acceptable alternative to CABG. Lesion complexity is an essential consideration for stenting, whereas patient comorbidity is an essential consideration for CABG. All patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease should be reviewed by a heart team including a cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: final results from the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial.

BACKGROUND: The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial demonstrated that in patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI)). The long-term cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2007, 1800 patients with left main or 3-vessel coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=897) or DES-PCI (n=903). Costs were assessed from a US perspective, and health state utilities were evaluated with the EuroQOL questionnaire. A patient-level microsimulation model based on the 5-year in-trial data was used to extrapolate costs, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy over a lifetime horizon. Although initial procedural costs were $3415 per patient lower with CABG, total hospitalization costs were $10 036 per patient higher. Over the next 5 years, follow-up costs were higher with DES-PCI as a result of more frequent hospitalizations, revascularization procedures, and higher medication costs. Over a lifetime horizon, CABG remained more costly than DES-PCI, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was favorable ($16 537 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) and remained <$20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year in most bootstrap replicates. Results were consistent across a wide range of assumptions about the long-term effect of CABG versus DES-PCI on events and costs. In patients with left main disease or a SYNTAX score ≤22, however, DES-PCI was economically dominant compared with CABG, although these findings were less certain. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, CABG is a clinically and economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with DES-PCI. However, among patients with less complex disease, DES-PCI may be preferred on both clinical and economic grounds. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00114972.

Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) when treating significant de novo left main coronary artery (LM) stenosis; however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a class IIa indication for unprotected LM disease in selected patients. This analysis compares 5-year clinical outcomes in PCI- and CABG-treated LM patients in the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial, the largest trial in this group to date. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SYNTAX trial randomly assigned 1800 patients with LM or 3-vessel disease to receive either PCI (with TAXUS Express paclitaxel-eluting stents) or CABG. The unprotected LM cohort (N=705) was predefined and powered. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates at 5 years was 36.9% in PCI patients and 31.0% in CABG patients (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.59]; P=0.12). Mortality rate was 12.8% and 14.6% in PCI and CABG patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.32]; P=0.53). Stroke was significantly increased in the CABG group (PCI 1.5% versus CABG 4.3%; hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.92]; P=0.03) and repeat revascularization in the PCI arm (26.7% versus 15.5%; hazard ratio, 1.82 [95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.57]; P<0.01). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between arms in patients with low/intermediate SYNTAX scores but significantly increased in PCI patients with high scores (≥33). CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, no difference in overall major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was found between treatment groups. PCI-treated patients had a lower stroke but a higher revascularization rate versus CABG. These results suggest that both treatments are valid options for LM patients. The extent of disease should accounted for when choosing between surgery and PCI, because patients with high SYNTAX scores seem to benefit more from surgery compared with those in the lower tertiles. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00114972.

A systematic review and critical assessment of 11 discordant meta-analyses on reduced-function CYP2C19 genotype and risk of adverse clinical outcomes in clopidogrel users.

We systematically investigated how 11 overlapping meta-analyses on the association between CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles and clinical efficacy of clopidogrel could yield contradictory outcomes. The results of the meta-analyses differed because more recent meta-analyses included more primary studies and some had not included conference abstracts. Conclusions differed because between-study heterogeneity and publication bias were handled differently across meta-analyses. All meta-analyses on the clinical end point observed significant heterogeneity and several reported evidence for publication bias, but only one out of eight statistically significant meta-analyses concluded that therefore the association was unproven and one other refrained from quantifying a pooled estimate because of heterogeneity. For the end point stent thrombosis, all meta-analyses reported statistically significant associations with CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles with no statistically significant evidence for heterogeneity, but only three had investigated publication bias and also found evidence for it. One study therefore concluded that there was no evidence for an association, and one other doubted the association because of a high level of heterogeneity. In summary, meta-analyses on the association between CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles and clinical efficacy of clopidogrel differed widely with regard to assessment and interpretation of heterogeneity and publication bias. The substantial heterogeneity and publication bias implies that personalized antiplatelet management based on genotyping is not supported by the currently available evidence.Genet Med advance online publication 19 June 2014.

What the cardiothoracic surgeon wants to know from the radiologist: from X-ray reporting to imaging consultancy and Heart Team membership.

In the early days of cardiac surgery, the pretreatment multidisciplinary discussion involved a presentation of the case history and diagnostic imaging by the clinical cardiologist. At this time, most, if not all, cardiac imaging techniques were in the hands of the cardiologist. If the radiologist made a report, this was done relatively late in the clinical process and only concerned the perioperative radiographs. In recent years, multidisciplinary decision-making in the context of a Heart Team has gained an increasingly important role in the process of decision-making with regard to the available therapy options in individual patients. Nevertheless, the concept of the Heart Team is still evolving. The minimal requirements for the Heart Team include the presence of the attending cardiologist, an interventional cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon. Those members of the Heart Team should be aware of the local possibilities, should correctly make conclusions about the available data and should put this information into the clinical context and preference of the patient. In addition, in areas where expertise in cardiac imaging such as CT and MRI is relevant, this would explicitly require expertise of the Heart Team in these specific areas, most often by involving a radiologist, to provide the optimal joint treatment strategy recommendation.

Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial.

AIMS: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered the standard of care for patients with three-vessel disease (3VD), but long-term comparative results from randomized trials of CABG vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) remain limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with de novo 3VD or left main disease were randomly assigned to PCI with the paclitaxel-eluting first-generation stent or CABG in the SYNTAX trial. This pre-specified analysis presents the 5-year outcomes of patients with 3VD (n = 1095). The rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was significantly higher in patients with PCI compared with CABG (37.5 vs. 24.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention as opposed to CABG resulted in significantly higher rates of the composite of death/stroke/myocardial infarction (MI) (22.0 vs. 14.0%, respectively; P < 0.001), all-cause death (14.6 vs. 9.2%, respectively; P = 0.006), MI (9.2 vs. 4.0%, respectively; P = 0.001), and repeat revascularization (25.4 vs. 12.6%, respectively; P < 0.001); however, stroke was similar between groups at 5 years (3.0 vs. 3.5%, respectively; P = 0.66). Results were dependent on lesion complexity (P for interaction = 0.12); in patients with a low (0-22) SYNTAX score, PCI vs. CABG resulted in similar rates of MACCE (33.3% vs. 26.8%, respectively; P = 0.21) but significantly more repeat revascularization (25.4% vs. 12.6%, respectively; P = 0.038), while in intermediate (23-32) or high (≥ 33) SYNTAX score terciles, CABG demonstrated clear superiority in terms of MACCE, death, MI, and repeat revascularization. Differences in MACCE between PCI and CABG were larger in diabetics [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.30] than non-diabetics (HR = 1.51), although the P for interaction failed to reach significance for MACCE (P for interaction = 0.095) or any of the other endpoints. CONCLUSION: Five-year results of patients with 3VD treated with CABG or PCI using the first-generation paclitaxel-eluting DES suggest that CABG should remain the standard of care as it resulted in significantly lower rates of death, MI, and repeat revascularization, while stroke rates were similar. For patients with low SYNTAX scores, PCI is an acceptable revascularization strategy, although at a price of significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00114972.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial.

BACKGROUND: We report the 5-year results of the SYNTAX trial, which compared coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of patients with left main coronary disease or three-vessel disease, to confirm findings at 1 and 3 years. METHODS: The randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial with nested registries took place in 85 centres in the USA and Europe. A cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist at each centre assessed consecutive patients with de-novo three-vessel disease or left main coronary disease to determine suitability for study treatments. Eligible patients suitable for either treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to either PCI with a first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stent or to CABG. Patients suitable for only one treatment option were entered into either the PCI-only or CABG-only registries. We analysed a composite rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 5-year follow-up by Kaplan-Meier analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00114972. FINDINGS: 1800 patients were randomly assigned to CABG (n=897) or PCI (n=903). More patients who were assigned to CABG withdrew consent than did those assigned to PCI (50 vs 11). After 5 years' follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimates of MACCE were 26·9% in the CABG group and 37·3% in the PCI group (p<0·0001). Estimates of myocardial infarction (3·8% in the CABG group vs 9·7% in the PCI group; p<0·0001) and repeat revascularisation (13·7%vs 25·9%; p<0·0001) were significantly increased with PCI versus CABG. All-cause death (11·4% in the CABG group vs 13·9% in the PCI group; p=0·10) and stroke (3·7%vs 2·4%; p=0·09) were not significantly different between groups. 28·6% of patients in the CABG group with low SYNTAX scores had MACCE versus 32·1% of patients in the PCI group (p=0·43) and 31·0% in the CABG group with left main coronary disease had MACCE versus 36·9% in the PCI group (p=0·12); however, in patients with intermediate or high SYNTAX scores, MACCE was significantly increased with PCI (intermediate score, 25·8% of the CABG group vs 36·0% of the PCI group; p=0·008; high score, 26·8%vs 44·0%; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: CABG should remain the standard of care for patients with complex lesions (high or intermediate SYNTAX scores). For patients with less complex disease (low SYNTAX scores) or left main coronary disease (low or intermediate SYNTAX scores), PCI is an acceptable alternative. All patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease should be reviewed and discussed by both a cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist to reach consensus on optimum treatment. FUNDING: Boston Scientific.

Quality of life after PCI with drug-eluting stents or coronary-artery bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that among patients undergoing multivessel revascularization, coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), as compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) either by means of balloon angioplasty or with the use of bare-metal stents, results in greater relief from angina and improved quality of life. The effect of PCI with the use of drug-eluting stents on these outcomes is unknown. METHODS: In a large, randomized trial, we assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo either CABG (897 patients) or PCI with paclitaxel-eluting stents (903 patients). Health-related quality of life was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months with the use of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). The primary end point was the score on the angina-frequency subscale of the SAQ (on which scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). RESULTS: The scores on each of the SAQ and SF-36 subscales were significantly higher at 6 and 12 months than at baseline in both groups. The score on the angina-frequency subscale of the SAQ increased to a greater extent with CABG than with PCI at both 6 and 12 months (P=0.04 and P=0.03, respectively), but the between-group differences were small (mean treatment effect of 1.7 points at both time points). The proportion of patients who were free from angina was similar in the two groups at 1 month and 6 months and was higher in the CABG group than in the PCI group at 12 months (76.3% vs. 71.6%, P=0.05). Scores on all the other SAQ and SF-36 subscales were either higher in the PCI group (mainly at 1 month) or were similar in the two groups throughout the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, there was greater relief from angina after CABG than after PCI at 6 and 12 months, although the extent of the benefit was small. (Funded by Boston Scientific; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.).