Risk of Stroke With Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Compared With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Istituto di Cardiologia, Policlinico S. Orsola, Bologna, Italy.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 16.5). 08/2012; 60(9):798-805. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.10.912
Source: PubMed


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.

1 Follower
8 Reads
  • Source
    • "Recent meta-analyses have also reported elevated stroke rates for CABG vs PCI. The most recent and largest meta-analysis to date [7], consisting of 19 randomized trials across 10 994 patients, concluded that 30-day stroke was almost three times more common with CABG than PCI [1.20 vs 0.34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.69–5.09; P < 0.0001]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical revascularization remains the standard of care for many patients. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) has evolved during the past 20 years, and as such can significantly reduce the occurrence of neurological complications. While avoiding the aortic cross-clamping required in conventional on-pump techniques, OPCAB results in a lower incidence of stroke. However, clamp-related risk of stroke remains if partial or side-biting clamps are applied for proximal anastomoses. Others and we have demonstrated that no-touch 'anaortic' approaches avoiding any clamping during off-pump procedures via complete in situ grafting result in significantly reduced stroke rates when compared with partial clamping. Therefore, OPCAB in situ grafting has been proposed as the 'standard of care' to reduce neurological complications. However, this technique may not be applicable to for every patient as the use of free grafts (arterial or venous) requiring proximal anastomosis is often still necessary to achieve complete revascularization. In these situations, proximal anastomosis can be performed without a partial clamp by using the HEARTSTRING device, and over the last few years, considerable evidence has arisen supporting the impact of HEARTSTRING-enabled anastomosis to significantly minimize atheroembolism and neurological complications when compared with partial- or side-bite clamping. This paper provides a systematic overview and technical information about the combination of OPCAB and clampless strategies using the HEARTSTRING for proximal anastomosis to reduce stroke to levels reported for percutaneous coronary intervention.
    Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 06/2013; 17(3). DOI:10.1093/icvts/ivt237 · 1.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Percutaneous coronary intervention offers several potential advantages in the very elderly. First, its low invasiveness and limited likelihood for cognitive impairment (at odds with coronary artery bypass surgery) make it appealing for physicians, patients, and relatives.[74] Moreover, coronary stenting can be staged if multivessel disease is present and repeated if deemed necessary when symptoms recur. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Percutaneous coronary intervention is a mainstay in the management of symptomatic or high-risk coronary artery disease. The bulk of clinical evidence and experience underlying this fact relies, however, on relatively young patients. Indeed, few data of very limited quality are available which adequately define the risk-benefit and cost-benefit profile of coronary angioplasty and stenting in very old subjects, such as those of 90 years of age or older (i.e., nonagenarians). The aim of this review is to provide a concise, yet practical, synthesis of the available evidence on percutaneous coronary revascularization in the very elderly. The main arguments elaborated upon are to what extent we can extrapolate findings from studies including younger patients to nonagenarians, whether we should provide higher priority to prognosis or quality of life in such patients, and whether we can afford to allocate vast resources to care for such subjects in an era of financial constraints. Our review of 18 studies and 1082 patients suggest that percutaneous coronary intervention is feasible and associated with acceptable short- and long-term results in this population, which is nonetheless fraught with a high mortality risk irrespective of the revascularization procedure. Accordingly, the pros and cons of percutaneous coronary intervention should be carefully weighed when considering this treatment in nonagenarians.
    Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 03/2013; 10(1):82-90. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-5411.2013.01.013 · 1.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: In some randomized trials comparing revascularization strategies for patients with diabetes, coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has had a better outcome than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to discover whether aggressive medical therapy and the use of drug-eluting stents could alter the revascularization approach for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods: In this randomized trial, we assigned patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease to undergo either PCI with drug-eluting stents or CABG. The patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years (median among survivors, 3.8 years). All patients were prescribed currently recommended medical therapies for the control of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and glycated hemoglobin. The primary outcome measure was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Results: From 2005 through 2010, we enrolled 1900 patients at 140 international centers. The patients' mean age was 63.1±9.1 years, 29% were women, and 83% had three-vessel disease. The primary outcome occurred more frequently in the PCI group (P=0.005), with 5-year rates of 26.6% in the PCI group and 18.7% in the CABG group. The benefit of CABG was driven by differences in rates of both myocardial infarction (P<0.001) and death from any cause (P=0.049). Stroke was more frequent in the CABG group, with 5-year rates of 2.4% in the PCI group and 5.2% in the CABG group (P=0.03). Conclusions: For patients with diabetes and advanced coronary artery disease, CABG was superior to PCI in that it significantly reduced rates of death and myocardial infarction, with a higher rate of stroke. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; FREEDOM number, NCT00086450.).
    New England Journal of Medicine 11/2012; 367(25). DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1211585 · 55.87 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

8 Reads
Available from