Comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting and stenting depending on the clinical and anatomical scenario: data from the retrospective single-center cohort study
https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2025-6092
EDN: GAAMJK
Abstract
Aim. To assess the long-term all-cause mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) under various clinical and anatomical scenarios.
Material and methods. This single-center cohort retrospective study assessed the outcomes of CABG and PCI with implantation of second-generation drugeluting stents in 4177 patients with stable CAD. Inhospital, 30-day and remote 5-year all-cause mortality (mean follow-up period — 38 months) was assessed. Also, the influence of the initial severity of CAD, the presence/absence of diabetes, myocardial contractility on remote all-cause mortality after myocardial revascularization was assessed.
Results. Inhospital and 30-day risks of death in patients who underwent PCI and CABG, after comparing the initial clinical characteristics, did not differ significantly. In the long-term follow-up period, PCI compared with CABG was associated with an increased all-cause mortality in the main groups (PCI vs CABG: odds ratio (OR) 1,84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1,30-2,62, p<0,001), as well as in the following subgroups: (1) in patients with multivessel CAD (OR 1,77, 95% CI 1,19-2,64, p=0,005), (2) in patients with left main CAD >50% (OR 5,04, 95% CI 1,72-14,76, p=0,003), but not in patients with single-vessel disease (OR 2,084, 95% CI 0,9964,361, p=0,051). Diabetes in the main study groups did not affect the difference in mortality as follows: CABG had an advantage over PCI regardless of diabetes. However, CABG in patients with multivessel disease and diabetes, in contrast to patients without diabetes, led to a significant decrease in all-cause death risk (OR 2,29, 95% CI 1,173-4,47, p=0,015). Also, PCI compared with CABG was accompanied by an increase in the 5-year death risk in patients with an not reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40% (OR 1,74, 95% CI 1,205-2,536, p=0,003), but not in patients with LVEF <40% (95% CI 1,314-4,709, p=0,809).
Conclusion. The obtained data indicate a significant reduction in the 5-year risk of all-cause mortality in patients undergoing CABG compared to patients after PCI. Potential long-term benefit from CABG compared to PCI may be obtained in patients with complex coronary artery involvement (left main coronary artery stenosis >50%, lesion of two or more coronary arteries), with concomitant diabetes in multivessel disease, and patients with non-reduced LVEF (>40%).
About the Authors
E. Z. GolukhovaRussian Federation
Moscow
I. Yu. Sigaev
Russian Federation
Moscow
M. A. Keren
Russian Federation
Moscow
T. V. Zavalikhina
Russian Federation
Moscow
K. V. Petrosyan
Russian Federation
Moscow
K. B. Yakhyaeva
Russian Federation
Moscow
I. V. Volkovskaya
Russian Federation
Moscow
S. A. Avakova
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. 2020 Clinical practice guidelines for Stable coronary artery disease. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2020;25(11):4076. (In Russ.) doi:10.15829/1560-4071-2020-4076.
2. Golukhova EZ. Coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in stable ischemic heart disease: contemporary approach. Creative Cardiology. 2019;13(2):91-7. (In Russ.) doi:10.24022/1997-3187-2019-13-2-91-97.
3. Sarno G, Lagerqvist B, Fröbert O, et al. Lower risk of stent thrombosis and restenosis with unrestricted use of ‘new-generation' drug-eluting stents: a report from the nationwide Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). Eur Heart J. 2012;33:606-13. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr479.
4. Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kim YH, et al. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1204-12. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1415447.
5. Sigaev IYu, Keren MA. Indications, criteria, choice of the method of myocardial revascularization: European and Russian clinical guidelines data. Creative Cardiology. 2018;12(2):167-76. (In Russ.) doi:10.24022/1997-3187-2018-12-2-167-176.
6. Kufner S, Joner M, Thannheimer A, et al. Ten-Year Clinical Outcomes From a Trial of Three Limus-Eluting Stents With Different Polymer Coatings in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation. 2019;139(3):325-33. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038065.
7. Chew NWS, Koh JH, Ng CH, et al. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A One-Stage MetaAnalysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:822228. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.822228.
8. De Filippo O, Di Franco A, Boretto P, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery for left main disease according to lesion site: A meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;166(1):120-32.e11. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.08.040.
9. Wang R, Serruys PW, Gao C, et al. Ten-year all-cause death after percutaneous or surgical revascularization in diabetic patients with complex coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2021;43(1):56-67. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab441.
10. Wolff G. Survival Benefits of Invasive Versus Conservative Strategies in Heart Failure in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis. Circ Heart Fail. 2017;10(1):e003255. doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.003255.
11. Golukhova EZ, Slivneva IV, Kozlova OS, et al. Treatment Strategies for Chronic Coronary Heart Disease with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction or Preserved Ejection Fraction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pathophysiology. 2023;30(4):640-58. doi:10.3390/pathophysiology30040046.
12. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2013; 7;368(6):584. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0804626.
13. Perera D, Clayton T, O'Kane PD, et al. Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(15):1351-60. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2206606.
14. Popova NV, Popov VA, Revishvili ASh. Myocardial revascularization in chronic coronary artery disease. State of art. Kardiologiia. 2023;63(6):3-13. (In Russ.) doi:10.18087/cardio.2023.6.n2263.
15. Petrosyan KV, Abrosimov AV, Goncharova ES. Assessing coronary blood flow physiology in the modern strategy of coronary artery disease catheterization treatment. Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2024;3(66):270-81. (In Russ.) doi:10.24022/0236-2791-2024-66-3-270-281.
Supplementary files
- Comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease indicate their comparable inhospital and 30-day postoperative mortality and a significant advantage of CABG over PCI in reducing the long-term all-cause mortality, primarily in patients with complex coronary artery involvement regardless of diabetes and patients with non-reduced myocardial contractility (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%).
- In single-vessel coronary artery disease, long-term all-cause mortality after CABG and PCI did not differ, which, when choosing the intervention tactics, speaks in favor of PCI as a less invasive revascularization method.
Review
For citations:
Golukhova E.Z., Sigaev I.Yu., Keren M.A., Zavalikhina T.V., Petrosyan K.V., Yakhyaeva K.B., Volkovskaya I.V., Avakova S.A. Comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting and stenting depending on the clinical and anatomical scenario: data from the retrospective single-center cohort study. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2025;30(4):6092. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2025-6092. EDN: GAAMJK