The effect of treatment timing on repeat revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

In patients with stable ischemic heart disease, there is no evidence for the effect of revascularization treatment timing on the need for repeat procedures. We aimed to determine if repeat revascularizations differed among patients who received coronary artery bypass graft surgery after the time recommended by physicians compared with those who had timely percutaneous coronary intervention. We identified 25,520 British Columbia residents 60 years or older who underwent first-time nonemergency revascularization for angiographically proven, stable left main or multivessel ischemic heart disease between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2016. We estimated unadjusted and adjusted cumulative incidence functions for repeat revascularization, in the presence of death as a competing risk, after index revascularization or last staged percutaneous coronary intervention for patients undergoing delayed coronary artery bypass grafting compared with timely percutaneous coronary intervention. After adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weights, at 3 years, patients who underwent delayed coronary artery bypass grafting had a statistically significant lower cumulative incidence of a repeat revascularization compared with patients who received timely percutaneous coronary intervention (4.84% delayed coronary artery bypass grafting, 12.32% timely percutaneous coronary intervention; subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.16, 95% CI, 0.04-0.65). Patients who undergo delayed coronary artery bypass grafting have a lower cumulative incidence of repeat revascularization than patients who undergo timely percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients who want to wait to receive coronary artery bypass grafting will see the benefit of lower repeat revascularization over percutaneous coronary intervention unaffected by a delay in treatment.

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.