Risk of Stroke With Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Compared With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
ABSTRACT This study sought to determine whether coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is associated with an increased risk of stroke compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Some, but not all, randomized trials have reported increased rates of stroke with CABG compared with PCI. However, all these studies were powered insufficiently to examine differences in the risk of stroke reliably.
We performed a meta-analysis of 19 trials in which 10,944 patients were randomized to CABG versus PCI. The primary end point was the 30-day rate of stroke. We also determined the rate of stroke at the midterm follow-up and investigated whether there was an interaction between revascularization type and the extent of coronary artery disease on the relative risk of stroke.
The 30-day rate of stroke was 1.20% after CABG compared with 0.34% after PCI (odds ratio: 2.94, 95% confidence interval: 1.69 to 5.09, p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed after a median follow-up of 12.1 months (1.83% vs. 0.99%, odds ratio: 1.67, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 2.56, p = 0.02). The extent of coronary artery disease (single vessel vs. multivessel vs. left main) did not affect the relative increase in the risk of stroke observed with CABG compared with PCI at either 30 days (p = 0.57 for interaction) or midterm follow-up (p = 0.08 for interaction). Similar results were observed when the outcomes in 33,980 patients from 27 observational studies were analyzed.
Coronary revascularization by CABG compared with PCI is associated with an increased risk of stroke at 30 days and at the mid-term follow-up.
- SourceAvailable from: Benedetto Umberto[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract INTRODUCTION: Surgical replacement for aortic stenosis is fraught with complications in high-risk patients. Transcatheter techniques may offer a minimally invasive solution, but their comparative effectiveness and safety is uncertain. We performed a network meta-analysis on this topic. METHODS: Randomized trials on transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs surgery were searched. The primary outcome was all cause death. Risk estimates were obtained with Bayesian network meta-analytic methods. RESULTS: Four trials with 1,805 patients were included. After a median of 8 months, risk of death and myocardial infarction was not different when comparing surgery versus transcatheter procedures, irrespective of device or access. Conversely, surgery was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (odds ratio vs CoreValve=3.03 [95% credible interval: 2.23-4.17]; odds ratio vs transfemoral Sapien =1.82 [1.21-2.70]; odds ratio vs transapical Sapien =2.08 [1.20-3.70]), and acute kidney injury (odds ratio vs CoreValve =2.08 [1.33-3.32]; odds ratio vs transapical Sapien =2.78 [2.21-99.80]), but lower rates of pacemaker implantation (odds ratio vs CoreValve =0.41 [0.28-0.59]), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (odds ratio vs CoreValve =0.06 [0.02-0.27]; odds ratio vs Sapien=0.17 [0.02-0.76]). Strokes were less frequent with CoreValve than with transfemoral Sapien (odds ratio =0.32 [0.13-0.73]) or transapical Sapien (odds ratio =0.33 [0.10-0.93]), whereas pacemaker implantation was more common with CoreValve (odds ratio vs surgery =2.46 [1.69-3.61]; odds ratio vs transfemoral Sapien =2.22 [1.27-3.85]). CONCLUSIONS: Survival after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement is similar, but there might be differences in the individual safety and effectiveness profile between the treatment strategies and the individual devices used in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. KEYWORDS: TAVI; TAVR; aortic stenosis; mixed treatment comparison; network meta-analysis; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; transcatheter aortic valve
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background The prospective, randomized FREEDOM (Comparison of Two Treatments for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Individuals With Diabetes) trial found coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) was associated with better clinical outcomes than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes and multivessel disease, managed with or without insulin. Objectives In this subgroup analysis of the FREEDOM trial, we examined the association of long-term clinical outcomes after revascularization in patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) compared with patients not treated with insulin. Methods A total of 1,850 FREEDOM subjects had an index revascularization procedure performed: 956 underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES), and 894 underwent CABG. A total of 602 patients (32.5%) had ITDM (PCI/DES n = 325, 34%; CABG n = 277, 31%). Subjects were classified according to ITDM versus non-ITDM, with comparison of PCI/DES versus CABG for each group. Interaction analyses were performed for treatment by diabetes mellitus (DM) status alone and for treatment by DM status by coronary lesion complexity. Analyses were performed for the primary outcome composite of death/stroke/myocardial infarction (MI) using all available follow-up data. Results The overall 5-year event rate of death/stroke/MI was significantly higher in ITDM versus non-ITDM patients (28.7% vs. 19.5%, p < 0.001), which persisted even after adjustment for multiple baseline factors, angiographic complexity, and revascularization treatment group (death/stroke/MI hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.73, p = 0.014). With respect to the primary composite endpoint, CABG was superior to PCI/DES in both DM types and the magnitude of treatment effect was similar (interaction p = 0.40) for ITDM (PCI vs. CABG HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.69) and non-ITDM patients (PCI vs. CABG HR: 1.46; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.94), even after adjusting for the angiographic SYNTAX score level. Based on 5-year event rates, the number needed to treat with CABG versus PCI to prevent 1 event is 12.7 in ITDM and 13.2 in non-ITDM. Conclusions In patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (death, MI, or stroke) is higher in patients treated with insulin than in those not treated with insulin. Furthermore, we did not detect a significant difference in the magnitude of PCI versus CABG treatment effect for patients treated with insulin and those not treated with insulin. (Comparison of Two Treatments for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Individuals With Diabetes [FREEDOM]; NCT00086450).Journal of the American College of Cardiology 09/2014; 64(12):1189–1197. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.1182 · 15.34 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may be performed using the transfemoral (TF) or transapical (TA) approach in most patients with aortic stenosis. The impact of access choice on peri-procedural and midterm results remains to be defined. Methods: Medline and Cochrane Library were searched for articles describing differences in baseline, periprocedural, and midterm outcomes among patients undergoing TF or TA TAVI. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality after at least 1-year follow-up, while secondary end-points were 30 days mortality and in-hospital complications (bleeding and cerebrovascular events). The independent impact of access choice was evaluated with pooled analysis using a random-effect model. Results: Thirteen studies with 10,468 patients were included. TF was the most exploited strategy (69.5% vs. 30.5%). After adjusting for confounding variables, 30-day and midterm follow-up mortality (median 365 days, range 222-400) were lower in TF patients with a pooled adjusted odds ratio of 0.81 (0.68-0.97 I-2 99%) and 0.85 (0.80-0.90 I-2 96%), respectively. Regarding periprocedural outcomes, TF reduced risk of bleedings and strokes (OR of 0.74 [0.66-0.82 I-2 95%] and 0.91 [0.83-0.99] I-2 86%, respectively). Conclusions: The TF approach reduces mortality in TAVI patients, due to lower rates of periprocedural bleedings and strokes.Journal of Interventional Cardiology 09/2014; 27(5). DOI:10.1111/joic.12141 · 1.50 Impact Factor