Coronary artery bypass grafting is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with left ventricular dysfunction

Mestres, Carlos A.; Hemelrijck, Mathias Van; Sromicki, Juri

doi:10.1111/jocs.15854

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CHD complicated with HFrEF is an emergency and its mortality rate is high, but its treatment is still controversial. Several studies have shown [Mestres 2021] that CABG remains the treatment of choice for CHD patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction and three-vessel coronary artery disease. A study of short-and long-term clinical outcomes of CABG in patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction by Tribak et al found that in-hospital mortality was 9.9%, postoperative morbidity was 36.9%, the 5-year survival rate was 90.5%, and 10-year survival rate was 43.4%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure and Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Zhou¹,

Jiang²,

Wang³

et al. 2023

HSF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To clarify the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on the clinical outcomes of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) complicated with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF) through meta-analysis. Methods: Three major literature databases – PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane – were searched by search terms and the literature retrieval time was publications dating from January 2007 to December 2021. To search for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the efficacy of PCI and CABG in patients with CHD and HFrEF, the abstract or full text of the literature was read and the final included literature was determined, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using the Ottawa scale and data extraction was further completed. Data analysis was made using RevMan5.4 and R4.1 software; relevant forest plots and funnel plots were made, according to the extracted data. Egger’s test was used to evaluate whether the data had publication bias. Outcomes were the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results: A total of 10 studies were included and 11,032 subjects were included, made up of 5,521 cases of PCI and 5,511 cases of CABG. The results showed no significant difference between the two groups in cardiac mortality (CM) (RR=1.13, 95% CI 0.98-1.30, P = 0.10) and in overall all-cause mortality (ACM) (RR=1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.37, P = 0.25). In the subgroup analysis of ACM, in the subgroups with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 35% and exceeding 35% and less than 50% (RR=1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.37, P = 0.25) between the two groups, there was no statistical difference. However, among other MACE, compared with the PCI group, the CABG group had a lower risk of MACE (RR=1.58, 95%CI 1.49-1.70, P < 0.00001), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR=1.99, 95% CI 1.02-3.88, P = 0.04), heart failure (HF) (RR=1.29, 95% CI 1.17-1.43, P < 0.00001) and revascularization (RR=2.74, 95% CI 1.93-3.90, P < 0.00001). Finally in the CABG group, the risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) was higher (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86, P = 0.0006) than the PCI group. Conclusions: The mortality rates of PCI and CABG were similar in patients with CHD complicated with HFrEF. Compared with PCI, CABG had a lower incidence of MACE, MI, HF, and revascularization, and a higher incidence of stroke or TIA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%