Search

Objectives: The goal of this analysis was to examine the comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention among patients aged less than 60 years., Methods: We performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis of all cardiac revascularization procedures from 2005 to 2015 among 7 medical centers. Inclusion criteria were age less than 60 years and 70% stenosis or greater in 1 or more major coronary artery distribution. Exclusion criteria were left main 50% or greater, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, emergency status, and prior revascularization procedure. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final study cohort included 1945 patients who underwent cardiac surgery and 2938 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was all-cause mortality stratified by revascularization strategy. Secondary end points included stroke, repeat revascularization, and 30-day mortality. We used inverse probability weighting to balance differences among the groups., Results: After adjustment, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (surgery: 0.8%; percutaneous coronary intervention: 0.7%, P = .86) for patients with multivessel disease. Patients undergoing surgery had a higher risk of stroke (1.3% [n = 25] vs 0.07% [n = 2], P < .001). Overall, surgery was associated with superior 10-year survival compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.88; P = .002). Repeat procedures occurred in 13.4% (n = 270) of the surgery group and 36.4% (n = 1068) of the percutaneous coronary intervention group, with both groups mostly undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention as their second operation. Accounting for death as a competing risk, at 10 years, surgery resulted in a lower cumulative incidence of repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.40; P < .001)., Conclusions: Among patients aged less than 60 years with 2-vessel disease that includes the left anterior descending or 3-vessel coronary artery disease, surgery was associated with greater long-term survival and decreased risk of repeat revascularization., (Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study evaluates the influence of bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) versus single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting on postoperative morbidity and long-term survival among diabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)., Methods: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of 47,984 consecutive CABGs performed from 1992 to 2014 at 7 medical centers was conducted. Among the study population, 1,482 CABGs with BIMA were identified, and 1,297 BIMA patients were propensity-matched to 1,297 SIMA patients. The study cohort for this analysis, drawn from matched data, included 430 diabetic patients: 217 SIMA and 213 BIMA. The primary endpoint was long-term survival. Secondary endpoints included postoperative morbidity, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality., Results: The median duration of follow-up was 9.3 (range, 4.3 to 13.9) years. Among propensity-matched diabetic patients, there was no significant difference in age, body mass index, or major baseline comorbidities. The groups were also well matched on the number of diseased coronary arteries and number of distal anastomoses performed. There was no difference in the rate of mediastinitis or sternal dehiscence (p = 0.503) or in-hospital mortality (p = 0.758) between groups. Both groups had a similar median length of stay of 5 (range, 4 to 7) days. Diabetic patients who received a BIMA had significantly improved long-term survival when compared with SIMA patients (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.98], p = 0.034)., Conclusions: Among diabetics undergoing CABG, use of BIMA grafting does not result in increased in-hospital morbidity or mortality and confers a long-term survival advantage when compared with SIMA grafting. Thus, diabetic patients should be considered for BIMA grafting more frequently., (Copyright © 2018 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)