On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND: Coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has traditionally been performed with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump CABG). CABG without cardiopulmonary bypass (off-pump CABG) might reduce the number of complications related to the heart-lung machine. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2203 patients scheduled for urgent or elective CABG to either on-pump or off-pump procedures. The primary short-term end point was a composite of death or complications (reoperation, new mechanical support, cardiac arrest, coma, stroke, or renal failure) before discharge or within 30 days after surgery. The primary long-term end point was a composite of death from any cause, a repeat revascularization procedure, or a nonfatal myocardial infarction within 1 year after surgery. Secondary end points included the completeness of revascularization, graft patency at 1 year, neuropsychological outcomes, and the use of major resources. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG in the rate of the 30-day composite outcome (7.0% and 5.6%, respectively; P=0.19). The rate of the 1-year composite outcome was higher for off-pump than for on-pump CABG (9.9% vs. 7.4%, P=0.04). The proportion of patients with fewer grafts completed than originally planned was higher with off-pump CABG than with on-pump CABG (17.8% vs. 11.1%, P<0.001). Follow-up angiograms in 1371 patients who underwent 4093 grafts revealed that the overall rate of graft patency was lower in the off-pump group than in the on-pump group (82.6% vs. 87.8%, P<0.01). There were no treatment-based differences in neuropsychological outcomes or short-term use of major resources. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year of follow-up, patients in the off-pump group had worse composite outcomes and poorer graft patency than did patients in the on-pump group. No significant differences between the techniques were found in neuropsychological outcomes or use of major resources. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00032630.).

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.

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.