Search

Background: Randomized trials have compared percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing nonemergent revascularization. However, there is a paucity of real-world contemporary observational studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and CABG., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of CABG versus PCI in patients with left main coronary disease., Methods: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada, were linked to obtain records of all patients with angiographic evidence of left main coronary artery disease (≥50% stenosis) treated with either isolated CABG or PCI from 2008 to 2020. Emergent, cardiogenic shock, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients were excluded. Baseline characteristics of patients were compared and 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Late mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazard model., Results: After exclusions, 1,299 and 21,287 patients underwent PCI and CABG, respectively. Prior to matching, PCI patients were older (age 75.2 vs 68.0 years) and more likely to be women (34.6% vs 20.1%), although they had less CAD burden. Propensity score matching on 25 baseline covariates yielded 1,128 well-matched pairs. There was no difference in early mortality between PCI and CABG (5.5% vs 3.9%; P = 0.075). Over 7-year follow-up, all-cause mortality (53.6% vs 35.2%; HR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.42-1.87; P < 0.001) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (66.8% vs 48.6%; HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.57-2.00) were significantly higher with PCI than CABG., Conclusions: CABG was the most common revascularization strategy in this real-world registry. Patients undergoing PCI were much older and of higher risk at baseline. After matching, there was no difference in early mortality but improved late survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events with CABG., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. This study also received funding from a Foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant FDN 148446) and the Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research. The authors acknowledge that the clinical registry data used in this analysis are from participating hospitals through CorHealth Ontario, which serves as an advisory body to the Ontario Ministry of Health, is funded by the MOH, and is dedicated to improving the quality, efficiency, access, and equity in the delivery of the continuum of adult cardiac and stroke care in Ontario, Canada. Dr Lee has served as the Ted Rogers Chair in Heart Function Outcomes, University Health Network, University of Toronto. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare early and late outcomes between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter AVR., Background: Published studies to date comparing redo surgical AVR (RS) with ViV transcatheter AVR for failed biological prostheses have been small and limited to early outcomes., Methods: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, were linked to obtain patients undergoing ViV and RS for failed previous biological prostheses. Propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Early outcomes were compared using the McNemar test. Late mortality was compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazards model., Results: A total of 558 patients undergoing intervention for failed biological prostheses between March 31, 2008, and September 30, 2017, at 11 Ontario institutions (ViV, n = 214; RS, n = 344) were included. Patients who underwent ViV were older and had more comorbidities. Propensity matching on 27 variables yielded similar groups for comparison (n = 131 pairs). Mean time from initial AVR to RS or ViV was 8.6 ± 4.4 years and 11.3 ± 4.5 years, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower with ViV compared with RS (absolute risk difference: -7.5%; 95% confidence interval: -12.6% to -2.3%). The rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and blood transfusions were also lower with ViV, as was length of stay. Survival at 5 years was higher with ViV (76.8% vs. 66.8%; hazard ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.99; p = 0.04)., Conclusions: ViV TAVR was associated with lower early mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay and with increased survival compared with RS and may be the preferred approach for the treatment of failed biological prostheses., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)