Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Disease Who Were Recommended for But Declined Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

coronary artery disease coronary revascularization multivessel coronary disease patient preferences shared decision‐making

Journal

Journal of the American Heart Association
ISSN: 2047-9980
Titre abrégé: J Am Heart Assoc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580524

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
31 May 2024
Historique:
medline: 31 5 2024
pubmed: 31 5 2024
entrez: 31 5 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Patients may prefer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, despite heart team recommendations. The outcomes in such patients have not been examined. We sought to examine the results of PCI in patients who were recommended for but declined CABG. Consecutive patients with stable ischemic heart disease and unprotected left main or 3-vessel disease or Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score >22 who underwent PCI after heart team review between 2013 and 2020 were included. Patients were categorized into 3 groups according to heart team recommendations on the basis of appropriate use criteria: (1) PCI-recommended; (2) CABG-eligible but refused CABG (CABG-refusal); and (3) CABG-ineligible. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The study included 3687 patients undergoing PCI (PCI-recommended, n=1718 [46.6%]), CABG-refusal (n=1595 [43.3%]), and CABG-ineligible (n=374 [10.1%]). Clinical and procedural risk increased across the 3 groups, with the highest comorbidity burden in CABG-ineligible patients. Composite events within 1 year after PCI occurred in 55 (4.1%), 91 (7.0%), and 41 (14.8%) of patients in the PCI-recommended, CABG-refusal, and CABG-ineligible groups, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, the risk of the primary composite outcome was significantly higher in the CABG-refusal (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67 [95% CI, 1.08-3.56]; Cardiovascular event rates after PCI were significantly higher in patients with multivessel disease who declined or were ineligible for CABG. Our findings provide real-world data to inform shared decision-making discussions.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Patients may prefer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, despite heart team recommendations. The outcomes in such patients have not been examined. We sought to examine the results of PCI in patients who were recommended for but declined CABG.
METHODS AND RESULTS RESULTS
Consecutive patients with stable ischemic heart disease and unprotected left main or 3-vessel disease or Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score >22 who underwent PCI after heart team review between 2013 and 2020 were included. Patients were categorized into 3 groups according to heart team recommendations on the basis of appropriate use criteria: (1) PCI-recommended; (2) CABG-eligible but refused CABG (CABG-refusal); and (3) CABG-ineligible. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The study included 3687 patients undergoing PCI (PCI-recommended, n=1718 [46.6%]), CABG-refusal (n=1595 [43.3%]), and CABG-ineligible (n=374 [10.1%]). Clinical and procedural risk increased across the 3 groups, with the highest comorbidity burden in CABG-ineligible patients. Composite events within 1 year after PCI occurred in 55 (4.1%), 91 (7.0%), and 41 (14.8%) of patients in the PCI-recommended, CABG-refusal, and CABG-ineligible groups, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, the risk of the primary composite outcome was significantly higher in the CABG-refusal (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67 [95% CI, 1.08-3.56];
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Cardiovascular event rates after PCI were significantly higher in patients with multivessel disease who declined or were ineligible for CABG. Our findings provide real-world data to inform shared decision-making discussions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38818962
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.123.033931
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e033931

Auteurs

Anoop N Koshy (AN)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.
Department of Cardiology The Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Department of Cardiology and The University of Melbourne Austin Health Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Gregg W Stone (GW)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Samantha Sartori (S)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.
Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Vishal Dhulipala (V)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Gennaro Giustino (G)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Alessandro Spirito (A)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.
Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Serdar Farhan (S)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Kenneth F Smith (KF)

Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Yihan Feng (Y)

Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Manish Vinayak (M)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Negar Salehi (N)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Richard Tanner (R)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Amit Hooda (A)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Parasuram Krishnamoorthy (P)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Joseph M Sweeny (JM)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Sahil Khera (S)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

George Dangas (G)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Farzan Filsoufi (F)

Department of Cardiac Surgery Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Roxana Mehran (R)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.
Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Annapoorna S Kini (AS)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Valentin Fuster (V)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Samin K Sharma (SK)

The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.

Classifications MeSH