Revascularization after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation or Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Disease

Similar documents
Can Angiographic Complete Revascularization Improve Outcomes for Patients with Decreased LV Function? NO!

The MAIN-COMPARE Study

PCI vs. CABG From BARI to Syntax, Is The Game Over?

The MAIN-COMPARE Registry

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 57, No. 21, by the American College of Cardiology Foundation ISSN /$36.

PROMUS Element Experience In AMC

Unprotected LM intervention

Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Coronary Disease (BEST Trial)

Abstract Background: Methods: Results: Conclusions:

Coronary Artery Stenosis. Insight from MAIN-COMPARE Study

DECISION-CTO. Optimal Medical Therapy With or Without Stenting For Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion. Seung-Jung Park, MD., PhD.

Alex versus Xience Registry Preliminary report

TRATAMIENTO INVASIVO ENFERMEDAD ISQUEMICA ESTABLE. Jonathan Poveda CLINICA BIBLICA 2015

Lessons learned From The National PCI Registry

Safety of Single- Versus Multi-vessel Angioplasty for Patients with AMI and Multi-vessel CAD

Optimal Duration of Clopidogrel Therapy with DES to Reduce Late Coronary Arterial Thrombotic Event. The DES LATE Trial

Incidence and Predictors of Stent Thrombosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Surgical vs. Percutaneous Revascularization in Patients with Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndrome

DECISION - CTO. optimal Medical Treatment in patients with. Seung-Jung Park, MD, PhD, FACC for the DECISION-CTO Study investigators

Paris, August 28 th Gian Paolo Ussia on behalf of the CoreValve Italian Registry Investigators

New Generation Drug- Eluting Stent in Korea

What do the guidelines say?

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting vs. Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Multivessel Disease in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Medicine OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

What is the Optimal Triple Anti-platelet Therapy Duration in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Drug-eluting Stents Implantation?

Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound- Guided vs. Angiography-Guided Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: the IVUS-XPL Randomized Clinical Trial

PCI for Left Anterior Descending Artery Ostial Stenosis

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 57, No. 12, by the American College of Cardiology Foundation ISSN /$36.

The SYNTAX-LE MANS Study

Supplementary Table S1: Proportion of missing values presents in the original dataset

FFR in Multivessel Disease

Unprotected Left Main Stenting: Patient Selection and Recent Experience. Alaide Chieffo. S. Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy

Surgery Grand Rounds

ISAR-LEFT MAIN: A Randomized Clinical Trial on Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Lesions

LM stenting - Cypher

Δημήτριος Αγγοσράς, FETCS

Important LM bifurcation studies update

Left Main Intervention: Will it become standard of care?

Is bypass surgery needed for elderly patients with LMT disease? From the surgical point of view

EXCEL vs. NOBLE: How to Treat Left Main Disease in 2017 AATS International Cardiovascular Symposium December 8-9, 2017

Count Down to COMBAT

388-1 Poongnap-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, , Republic of Korea b Department of Medicine, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

FFR-guided Jailed Side Branch Intervention

high SYNTAX Score? I Sheiban Division of Cardiology Interventional Card. University of Turin Turin / Italy

Between Coronary Angiography and Fractional Flow Reserve

Final Clinical and Angiographic Results From a Nationwide Registry of FIREBIRD Sirolimus- Eluting Stent: Firebird In China (FIC) Registry (PI R. Gao)

SURGICAL MYOCARDIAL REVASCULARIZATION: ARTERIAL VS VENOUS GRAFTS, SINGLE VS MULTIPLE GRAFTS?

Declaration of conflict of interest. Nothing to disclose

Left Main and Bifurcation Summit I. Lessons from European LM Studies

PCI for Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. Jean Fajadet Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France

Importance of the third arterial graft in multiple arterial grafting strategies

Chronic Total Occlusions. Stephen Cook, MD Medical Director, Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Oregon Heart & Vascular Institute

Beta-blockers in Patients with Mid-range Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction after AMI Improved Clinical Outcomes

Upgrade of Recommendation

Rationale for Percutaneous Revascularization ESC 2011

New Insight about FFR and IVUS MLA

Integrated Use of IVUS and FFR for LM Stenting

Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Without On-site Cardiac Surgery

Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea * Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, Korea

VCU Pauley Heart Center: A 2009 US News Top 50 Heart and Heart Surgery Hospital

Long-Term Outcomes After Stenting Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Chronic Total Occlusion: A case for coronary artery bypass grafting

Left Main Disease: what is left to surgery? Prof. Jacques Monségu CardioVascular Institute Grenoble, France

Stent Fracture and Longitudinal Compression on CT Angiography between the

Left Main PCI. Integrated Use of IVUS and FFR. Seung-Jung Park, MD, PhD

PCI for Long Coronary Lesion

Case Report Left Main Stenosis. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) or Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery (CABG)?

Benefit of Performing PCI Based on FFR

Revascularization in Severe LV Dysfunction: The Role of Inducible Ischemia and Viability Testing

Impact of Lesion Length on Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention Outcomes

Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for the Treatment of Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

When should we indisputably perform CABG? Quand faut-il indiscutablement opérer? Dr Hakim BENAMER

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 46, No. 5, by the American College of Cardiology Foundation ISSN /05/$30.

Jun-Won Lee, Sang Wook Park, Jung-Woo Son, Young Jin Youn, Min-Soo Ahn, Sung Gyun Ahn, Jang-Young Kim, Byung-Soo Yoo, Junghan Yoon, Seung-Hwan Lee

The Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery: The SYNTAX Study

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Diabetics: All Arterial or Hybrid?

Implications of the New ESC/EACTS Guidelines for Myocardial Revascularization in 2011

Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction and Clinical Outcome In Bifurcation Lesion

Prevention of Coronary Stent Thrombosis and Restenosis

DOI: /CIRCULATIONAHA

Supplementary Appendix

Long-term outcomes of PCI vs. CABG for ostial/midshaft lesions in unprotected left main coronary artery

CABG for ischemic cardiomyopathy, post myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock

Revascularization for Patients with HFrEF: CABG and PCI and the Concept of Myocardial Viability

Functional Assessment of Jailed Side Branches in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Using Fractional Flow Reserve

Coronary interventions

Percutaneous Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Disease

Sirolimus- Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for the Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

Controversies in Cardiac Surgery

PCI for In-Stent Restenosis. CardioVascular Research Foundation

CASE from South Korea

Αγγειοπλαστική σε Nόσο Στελέχους: Που βρισκόμαστε. Βάιος Τζίφος Δ/ντής Τμήματος Επεμβατικής Καρδιολογίας Τομέας Καρδιάς Ερρίκος Ντυνάν Hospital Center

Coronary Artery Disease: Revascularization (Teacher s Guide)

Left Main Intervention: Where are we in 2015?

Side Branch Occlusion

The Second Best Arterial Graft:

Diabetic Patients: Current Evidence of Revascularization

BMS vs. DES vs. CABG

J. Schwitter, MD, FESC Section of Cardiology

What oral antiplatelet therapy would you choose? a) ASA alone b) ASA + Clopidogrel c) ASA + Prasugrel d) ASA + Ticagrelor

Transcription:

Impact of Angiographic Complete Revascularization after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation or Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Disease Young-Hak Kim, Duk-Woo Park, Jong-Young Lee, Won-Jang Kim, Sung- Cheol Yun, Jung-Min Ahn, Hae Geun Song, Jun-Hyok Oh, Jong Seon Park, Soo-Jin Kang, Seung-Whan Lee, Cheol Whan Lee, Seong-Wook Park, Seung-Jung Park Heart Institute, University of Ulsan College of Medicine Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Impact of Angiographic Complete Revascularization (CR) after DES Implantation MI-free Survival in NY Registry Months Hannan EL et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2009;2:17

Impact of Angiographic CR after CABG Surgery Death, UA, MI, Hospitalization, & Repeat revascularization -free Survival CR (N=207) Incomplete CR (N=105) P<0.01 01 Years Months Agostini M et al. J Card Surg 2009;24:650

But, Impact of CR needs to be further investigated. t Due to technical complexity, low ejection fraction, or safety concerns regarding the implantation of multiple DES, diseased segments have often been incompletely revascularized in patients undergoing PCI. Furthermore, even with CABG, the strategy of incomplete revascularization () has occasionally been adopted to reduce operation-related complications, particularly when minimally invasive or off-pump surgery is attempted. Additional studies are needed to assess the outcomes of updated treatments, such as DES, left internal mammary artery (LIMA) grafting, off-pump surgery and current medications.

Purpose We, therefore, evaluated the long-term clinical impacts of angiographic CR, as compared with, in patients receiving PCI with DES or CABG for multivesel l coronary disease (MVD).

Subjects 1914 Patients with MVD in the Asan Medical Center Multivessel Registry who underwent DES (N=1400) implantation ti or CABG (N=514) between January 2003 and December 2005 were included d in this study. Patients who underwent prior CABG or concomitant valvular or aortic surgery, and those who had an acute myocardial infarction (MI) within 24 hours before revascularization or presented with cardiogenic shock were excluded.

Procedures The choice of DES type and the use of intravascular ultrasound,,gy glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or other devices to facilitate optimal stenting were at the operator s discretion. In CABG, the LIMA primarily attempted to be grafted to the LAD artery. On- or off-pump surgery was performed at the operator s discretion.

Decision of CR Factors involved in the decision-making process included patient s presentation and comorbidity, LV EF, objective ischemia evidenced by stress tests, jeopardized myocardium of the diseased segment, presence of viable myocardium, and anatomical complexity. PCI was preferred for patients at high surgical risk d t bi d bidit due to combined morbidity. CABG was considered as the primary option of MVD in patients with severe angiographic complexity or low LV EF.

End Points MACE: all-cause death, MI, and stroke. MACCE: MACE plus repeat revascularization. MI: new pathologic Q waves after index treatment or follow-up MI requiring subsequent hospitalization. Repeat revascularization included d target t vessel revascularization. Stroke: neurologic deficits, was confirmed by a neurologist based on imaging modalities. All outcomes of interest were carefully verified and adjudicated by independent clinicians.

Angiographic g Analysis Diseased segments and lesion characteristics were categorized according to the Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) classification. CABG patients were assessed by comparing the diagnostic angiographic analysis with the surgical procedure report. CR in PCI patients was assessed by comparing the diagnostic and post-procedural angiograms.

Angiographic CR-1 Definitions of CR - Revascularization of all SYNTAX segment ( 1.5 mm), consisting of RCA (# 1, 2 & 3), PDA (# 4 or 15), PL (# 16), LAD (# 5, 6, 7 & 8), Diag (# 9 or 10), LCX (# 11 &13), OM (# 12 or 14).

Definitions of CR Angiographic CR-2 - Revascularization of all SYNTAX segment ( 2.5 mm) Proximal CR - Revascularization of all proximal arterial systems (# 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11) Multivessel - 2 diseased vessels The LM (# 5) was considered d revascularized when the LAD was bypassed in the CABG group or directly treated percutaneously in the PCI group

Statistical Analysis Adjustment using multivariable Cox proportional- hazards regression and weighted Cox proportional-hazards regression models with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW). Interactions between factors associated with CR and treatment strategy were tested by incorporation of formal interaction terms in the multivariable Cox model.

Prevalence of CR according to the Definitions % 100 Overall PCI CABG 80 60 40 20 0 48 41 66 69 64 79 78 CR-1 CR-2 Proximal CR Multivessel 62 57 19 26 5

Baseline Characteristics PCI CABG Variable CR CR P (N=573) (N=827) (N=344) (N=170) P Age, years 60.8±10.47 62.7±9.8 <0.001 61.6±8.7 62.2±8.0 0.50 Male 389 (67.9) 586 (70.9) 0.24 253 (73.5) 122 (71.8) 0.67 Diabetes mellitus 172 (30.0) 0) 271 (32.8) 028 0.28 151 (43.9) 66 (38.8) 8) 027 0.27 Hypertension 312 (54.5) 486 (58.8) 0.11 211 (61.3) 108 (63.5) 0.63 Current smoker 175 (30.5) 238 (28.8) 8) 048 0.48 72 (20.9) 34 (20.0) 0) 081 0.81 Hyperlipidemia 153 (26.7) 189 (22.9) 0.10 164 (47.7) 87 (51.2) 0.46 Prior MI 60 (10.5) 79 (9.6) 057 0.57 78 (22.7) 47 (27.6) 022 0.22 Previous CABG 86 (15.0) 159 (19.2) 0.041 57 (16.6) 33 (19.4) 0.43 Previous CHF 7(12) (1.2) 13 (1.6) 059 0.59 15 (4.4) 4) 5(29) (2.9) 043 0.43

Baseline Characteristics Variable CR (N=573) PCI (N=827) P CR (N=344) CABG (N=170) COPD 3 (0.5) 12 (1.5) 0.10 7 (2.0) 6 (3.5) 0.37 CVA 25 (4.4) 50 (6.0) 0.17 44 (12.8) 28 (16.5) 0.26 Peripheral Ds 10 (1.7) 20 (2.4) 039 0.39 29 (8.4) 17 (10.0) 0) 056 0.56 Renal failure 10 (1.7) 27 (3.3) 0.08 23 (6.7) 15 (8.8) 0.38 Atrial fibrillation 20 (3.5) 24 (2.9) 054 0.54 9(26) (2.6) 3(18) (1.8) 076 0.76 Clinical presentation 0.57 0.54 Stable angina 275 (48.0) 420 (50.8) 115 (33.4) 58 (34.1) Unstable angina 245 (42.8) 338 (40.9) 209 (60.8) 106 (62.4) Acute MI 53 (9.2) 69 (8.3) 20 (5.8) 6(35) (3.5) P

Angiographic Characteristics PCI CABG Variable CR (N=573) (N=827) P CR (N=344) (N=170) P SYNTAX score 15.0±7.1 19.0±7.7 <0.001 29.5±10.5 30.8±10.7 0.20 Angiographic Ds LAD 509 (88.8) 770 (93.1) 0.005 340 (98.8) 169 (99.4) 0.53 LCX 294 (51.3) 627 (75.8) <0.001 270 (78.5) 150 (88.2) 0.007 RCA 332 (57.9) 686 (83.0) <0.001 290 (84.3) 164 (96.5) <0.001 LM 104 (18.2) 110 (13.3) 0.013 160 (46.5) 72 (42.4) 0.37 Three-VD 124 (21.6) 446 (53.9) <0.001 236 (68.6) 143 (84.1) <0.001 Any CTO 91 (15.9) 202 (24.4) 4) <0.001001 157 (45.6) 79 (46.5) 086 0.86

Procedures PCI CABG Variable CR CR P (N=573) (N=827) (N=344) (N=170) P CABG procedures No. of conduits 3.6±1.0 2.9±1.1 <0.001 No. of a. conduit 10±0 1.0±0.11 10±0 1.0±0.11 058 0.58 Internal thoracic a. 266 (77.3) 128 (75.3) 0.61 Off-pump surgery 92 (26.7) 42 (24.7) 062 0.62 PCI techniques No. of total stents 2.5±1.3 2.2±1.2 <0.001 Stents length (mm) 63.6±36.3 55.9±32.3 <0.001 Stent size (mm) 3.2±0.3 3.1±0.3 0.063

Cumulative Incidence of Events over 5 Years in All Patients t (N=1914) % 40 Yes No MACE MACCE P=0.91 0.82 0.84 0.10 p=0.21 0.20 0.30 0.001 30 20 10 0 12.1 11.9 12.3 11.6 12.0 12.0 14.4 11.5 22.4 24.9 22.7 25.1 22.9 25.0 30.3 22.1 CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi

Cumulative Incidence of Events over 5 Years in All Patients t (N=1914) % 40 Yes No MACE MACCE P=0.91 0.82 0.84 0.10 p=0.21 0.20 0.30 0.001 30 20 10 0 12.1 11.9 12.3 11.6 12.0 12.0 14.4 11.5 22.4 24.9 22.7 25.1 22.9 25.0 30.3 22.1 CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi

Cumulative Incidence of Events over 5 Years in PCI Patients t (N=1400) % 40 Yes No MACE MACCE P=0.11 0.34 0.30 0.094 p=0.35 0.61 0.81 0.034 30 20 10 0 9.4 11.7 10.2 11.3 10.1 11.5 12.8 10.1 24.0 26.3 24.8 26.0 25.1 25.7 29.3 24.0 CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi

Cumulative Incidence of Events over 5 Years in PCI Patients t (N=1400) % 40 Yes No MACE MACCE P=0.11 0.34 0.30 0.094 p=0.35 0.61 0.81 0.034 30 20 10 0 9.4 11.7 10.2 11.3 10.1 11.5 12.8 10.1 24.0 26.3 24.8 26.0 25.1 25.7 29.3 24.0 CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi

Cumulative Incidence of Events over 5 Years in CABG Patients t (N=514) % 50 40 Yes No MACE MACCE P=0.35 0.53 0.86 0.008 p=0.73 0.74 0.48 0.014 30 20 10 0 16.5 13.3 16.0 13.3 15.7 14.6 33.6 14.5 19.6 18.2 18.9 20.1 18.5 21.3 38.3 18.1 CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi

Cumulative Incidence of Events over 5 Years in CABG Patients t (N=514) % 50 40 Yes No MACE MACCE P=0.35 0.53 0.86 0.008 p=0.73 0.74 0.48 0.014 30 20 10 0 16.5 13.3 16.0 13.3 15.7 14.6 33.6 14.5 19.6 18.2 18.9 20.1 18.5 21.3 38.3 18.1 CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi CR-1 CR-2 Px CR Multi

Unadjusted Mortality By Angiographic CR-1 CR 15 10 P=0.87 8.9% 89% 8.9% 5 0 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 Days At risk CR 917 877 858 835 806 603 997 949 917 899 861 541

Unadjusted Outcomes in All Patients By Angiographic CR-1 CR (%) 40 MACE (All) MACCE (All) 30 20 10 P=0.91 p=0.21 11.9 12.1 24.9 22.4 0 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 At risk 997 939 904 878 834 526 997 876 821 781 731 444 CR 917 871 850 821 782 581 917 821 787 744 698 520

Unadjusted Outcomes in PCI By Angiographic CR-1 CR (%) 40 MACE (PCI) MACCE (PCI) 30 P=0.11 p=0.35 26.3 20 24.0 10 11.7 9.4 0 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 At risk 827 780 749 731 691 411 827 722 672 641 594 336 CR 573 557 546 528 501 350 573 511 490 459 424 296

Unadjusted Outcomes in All Patients By Multivessel l Multi. + Multi. (%) 40 MACE (All) MACCE (All) 30 P=0.10 p=0.001 30.3 20 14.4 22.1 10 11.5 0 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 At risk M M. 1546 1467 1426 1383 1311 942 1546 1382 1317 1250 1172 833 Mi.+ 368 343 328 316 305 165 368 315 293 275 257 132

Unadjusted Outcomes in PCI By Multivessel l Multi. + Multi. (%) 40 MACE (PCI) MACCE (PCI) 30 P=0.094 p=0.034 29.3 20 12.8 24.0 10 10.1 0 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 At risk M M. 1056 1015 986 961 903 610 1056 939 888 843 777 513 M.+ 344 322 309 298 289 151 344 294 274 257 241 119

Adjusted Outcomes of MACE Multivariate adjustment IPTW Definitions HR 95% CI 95% CI p HR LL UL LL UL p Angiographic CR-1 1.04 0.80 1.36 0.75 1.04 0.79 1.36 0.80 All Angiographic CR-2 1.05 0.80 1.38 0.72 1.09 0.83 1.44 0.53 Proximal CR 1.04 0.79 1.37 0.80 1.00 0.75 1.32 0.97 Multivessel 1.26 0.92 1.74 0.15 0.97 0.66 1.43 0.89 Angiographic CR-1 0.82 0.58 1.15 0.25 0.84 0.59 1.20 0.33 PCI Angiographic CR-2 090 0.90 065 0.65 125 1.25 053 0.53 095 0.95 068 0.68 133 1.33 077 0.77 Proximal CR 0.90 0.65 1.25 0.53 0.95 0.67 1.34 0.76 Multivessel l 130 1.30 091 0.91 187 1.87 015 0.15 105 1.05 070 0.70 159 1.59 081 0.81 No interaction was found between the treatment type and any definition of CRs.

Adjusted Outcomes of MACCE Multivariate adjustment IPTW Definitions iti HR 95% CI 95% CI p HR LL UL LL UL p Angiographic CR-1 0.90 0.75 1.09 0.29 0.91 0.75 1.10 0.32 All Angiographic CR-2 0.89 0.73 1.07 0.21 0.92 0.76 1.12 0.40 Proximal CR 0.92 0.76 1.12 0.40 0.90 0.74 1.10 0.30 Multivessel 1.44 1.16 1.79 0.001 1.27 0.97 1.66 0.079 Angiographic CR-1 0.95 0.76 1.18 0.62 0.94 0.75 1.18 0.61 PCI Angiographic CR-2 099 0.99 080 0.80 122 1.22 090 0.90 100 1.00 081 0.81 125 1.25 099 0.99 Proximal CR 1.01 0.82 1.26 0.90 1.04 0.83 1.30 0.73 Multivessel 1.24 0.98 1.57 0.071 1.20 0.91 1.58 0.19 No interaction was found between the treatment type and any definition of CRs.

Conclusions Anatomical CR for all angiographic stenoses did not improve the long-term clinical outcomes after either PCI or CABG in patients with MVD. However, in patients with extensive coronary artery disease, multivessel may be associated with unfavorable long-term clinical outcomes. Therefore, the risks and benefits of revascularization treatment may be balanced by an ischemia-guided revascularization strategy.