Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy: long-term

Jason E Bloom1,2,3,4, Sara Vogrin5, Christopher M Reid4,6

  • 1Cardiology Division, Columbia University Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Ave, Herbert Irving Pavilion, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10032, USA.

European Heart Journal
|October 29, 2024
PubMed

Insights

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improves long-term survival in severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients compared to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CABG showed reduced mortality, though with increased stroke risk and hospital stay.

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Interventional Cardiology
  • Cardiac Surgery

Background:

  • Optimal revascularization strategy for ischaemic cardiomyopathy is unclear.
  • Lack of contemporary randomized trial data for clinical guidance.

Purpose of the Study:

  • Assess long-term survival in severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients.
  • Compare outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of Australian and New Zealand registries (2005-2018).
  • Included patients with severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy (LVEF <35%).
  • Used propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for risk adjustment.

Main Results:

  • CABG group (1451 patients) vs. PCI group (591 patients).
  • CABG associated with reduced long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.59, P = .001).
  • No difference in in-hospital mortality; increased stroke risk and hospital stay with CABG.

Conclusions:

  • CABG demonstrates improved long-term survival over PCI in severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy.
  • Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm these findings.
Abstract