Abstract
Introduction: Ischemic heart diseases are the major leading cause of death worldwide. Revascularization procedures dramatically reduced the overall risk for death related to acute coronary syndromes. Two kinds of myocardial revascularization can grossly be outlined: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical coronary artery bypass graft intervention (CABG).
The net clinical benefit coming from these two kinds of procedures is still under debate.
Methods: We have traced the state-of-the-art background about myocardial revascularization procedures by comparing the most important trials dealing with the evaluation of percutaneous interventions versus a surgical approach to coronary artery diseases.
Results: Both PCI and CABG have become effective treatments for revascularization of patients suffering from advanced CAD. The advance in technology and procedural techniques made PCI an attractive and, to some extent, more reliable procedure in the context of CAD. However, there are still patients that cannot undergo PCI and have to be rather directed towards CABG.
Conclusion: CABG still remains the best strategy for the treatment of multiple vessel CAD due to improved results in term of survival and freedom from reintervention. Anyway, a systematic, multidisciplinary approach to revascularization is the fundamental behaviour to be chased in order to effectively help the patients in overcoming its diseases. The creation of the “heart team” seems to be a good option for the correct treatment of patients suffering from stable and unstable CAD.
Keywords: CABG, coronary artery disease, myocardial revascularization, outcomes, PCI, ischemic heart diseases.
Graphical Abstract
[1]
Nichols M, Townsend N, Scarborough P, Rayner M. Cardiovascular disease in Europe 2014: Epidemiological update. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2950.
[2]
Dégano IR, Salomaa V, Veronesi G, et al. Twenty-five-year trends in myocardial infarction attack and mortality rates, and case-fatality, in six European populations. Heart 2015; 101: 1413-21.
[3]
Henderson RA, Jarvis C, Clayton T, Pocock SJ, Fox KA. 10-Year mortality outcome of a routine invasive strategy versus a selective invasive strategy in non-st-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: The British Heart Foundation RITA-3 randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66: 511-20.
[4]
Chaitman BR, Rosen AD, Williams DO, et al. Myocardial infarction and cardiac mortality in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) randomized trial. Circulation 1997; 96: 2162-70.
[5]
Hueb W, Lopes N, Gersh BJ, et al. Ten-year follow-up survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): A randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 2010; 122: 949-57.
[6]
Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 432-40.
[7]
Park DW, Kim YH, Song HG, et al. Long-term outcome of stents versus bypass surgery in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease: A pooled analysis of 5775 individual patient data. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5: 467-75.
[8]
European Coronary Surgery Study Group. Long-term results of prospective randomised study of coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectoris. Lancet 1982; 2(8309): 1173-80.
[9]
CASS Principal Investigators and their Associates. Myocardial infarction and mortality in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) randomized trial. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 750-8.
[10]
The VeteransAdministration Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery for stable angina. The Veterans Administration Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 1333-9.
[11]
Favaloro RG. Critical analysis of coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A 30-year journey. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 1-63B.
[12]
Foster ED, Fisher LD, Kaiser GC, et al. Potential for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty before initial and repeat coronary artery bypass grafting in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry population. Am J Cardiol 1984; 53: 112-5C.
[13]
Meier B, Gruentzig AR, Siegenthaler WE, Schlumpf M. Long-term exercise performance after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation 1983; 68: 796-802.
[14]
Rodriguez A, Boullon F, Perez-Baliño N, et al. Argentine randomized trial of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease (ERACI): In-hospital results and 1-year follow-up. ERACI Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22: 1060-7.
[15]
Hamm CW, Reimers J, Ischinger T, et al. A randomized study of coronary angioplasty compared with bypass surgery in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease. German Angioplasty Bypass Surgery Investigation (GABI). N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1037-43.
[16]
Cabri Trial Participants. First-year results of CABRI (Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularisation Investigation). Lancet 1995; 346: 1179-84.
[17]
Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Seed P, Treasure T, Hampton JR. Quality of life, employment status, and anginal symptoms after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery. 3-year follow-up in the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) Trial. Circulation 1996; 94: 135-42.
[18]
The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 217-25.
[19]
King S III, Kosinski A, Guyton R, Lembo N, Weintraub W. Eight-year mortality in the Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial (EAST). J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35: 1116-21.
[20]
Serruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, et al. Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1117-24.
[21]
SoS Investigators. Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 965-70.
[22]
Rodriguez AE, Baldi J, Pereira C, et al. Five-Year follow-up of the argentine randomized trial of coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II). J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 582-8.
[23]
Stone GW, Lansky AJ, Pocock SJ, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1946-59.
[24]
Räber L, Jüni P, Nüesch E, et al. Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57: 2143-51.
[25]
Briguori C, Condorelli G, Airoldi F, et al. Comparison of coronary drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2007; 99: 779-84.
[26]
Javaid A, Steinberg DH, Buch AN, et al. Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 2007; 116: I200-6.
[27]
Ong AT, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, et al. The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) study: Design, rationale, and run-in phase. Am Heart J 2006; 151: 1194-204.
[28]
Hueb W, Soares PR, Gersh BJ, et al. The medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study (MASS-II): A randomized, controlled clinical trial of three therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease: one-year results. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: 1743-51.
[29]
King SB III, Smith SC Jr, Hirshfeld JW Jr, et al. 2007 Focused Update of the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: 2007 writing group to review new evidence and update the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention, writing on behalf of the 2005 writing committee. Circulation 2008; 117(2): 261-95.
[30]
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 2009; 360: 961-72.
[31]
Daemen J, Wenaweser P, Tsuchida K, et al. Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study. Lancet 2007; 369: 667-78.
[32]
Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, et al. The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 2005; 1: 219-27.
[33]
Capodanno D, Capranzano P, Di Salvo ME, et al. Usefulness of SYNTAX score to select patients with left main coronary artery disease to be treated with coronary artery bypass graft. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2: 731-8.
[34]
Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ, et al. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J 2011; 32(17): 2125-34.
[35]
Head SJ, Davierwala PM, Serruys PW, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2821-30.
[36]
Head SJ, Borgermann J, Osnabrugge RL, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 2 - optimizing outcomes and future prospects. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 2873-86.
[37]
Jokinen JJ, Werkkala K, Vainikka T, Perakyla T, Simpanen J, Ihlberg L. Clinical value of intra-operative transit-time flow measurement for coronary artery bypass grafting: A prospective angiography-controlled study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011; 39: 918-23.
[38]
Head SJ, Mack MJ, Holmes DR Jr, et al. Incidence, predictors and outcomes of incomplete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting: a subgroup analysis of 3-year SYNTAX data. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 41: 535-41.
[39]
Farooq V, Serruys PW, Bourantas CV, et al. Quantification of incomplete revascularization and its association with five-year mortality in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) trial validation of the residual SYNTAX score. Circulation 2013; 128: 141-51.
[40]
Taggart DP. Incomplete revascularization: Appropriate and inappropriate. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 41: 542-3.
[41]
Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 2105-11.
[42]
Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 213-24.
[43]
Moussa I, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al. Impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcome in diabetic patients: A SIRIUS (SIRolImUS-coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) substudy. Circulation 2004; 109: 2273-8.
[44]
Abizaid A, Costa MA, Centemero M, et al. Clinical and economic impact of diabetes mellitus on percutaneous and surgical treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: insight from the Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study (ARTS) trial. Circulation 2001; 104: 533-8.
[45]
Sim I, Gupta M, McDonald K, Bourassa M, Hlatky MA. A meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaeous transluminal coronary angioplasty in multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1995; 76: 1025-9.
[46]
Palmerini T, Marzocchi A, Marrozzini C, et al. Comparison between coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (the Bologna Registry). Am J Cardiol 2006; 98: 54-9.
[47]
Naganuma T, Chieffo A, Meliga E, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for ostial/midshaft lesions in unprotected left main coronary artery from the DELTA registry: A multicenter registry evaluating percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main treatment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 354-61.
[48]
Shiomi H, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, et al. Comparison of five-year outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in triple-vessel coronary artery disease (from the coronary revascularization demonstrating outcome study in kyoto PCI/CABG registry Cohort-2). Am J Cardiol 2015; 116: 59-65.
[49]
Marui A, Kimura T, Nishiwaki N, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis (5-year outcomes of the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2). Am J Cardiol 2014; 114: 555-61.
[50]
Pandey A, McGuire DK, de Lemos JA, et al. Revascularization trends in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with non-st elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the national cardiovascular data registry acute coronary treatment and intervention outcomes network registry-get with the guidelines (NCDR ACTION registry-GWTG). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2016; 9: 197-205.
[51]
Stefanini GG, Holmes DR Jr. Drug-eluting coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 254-65.
[52]
Stefanini GG, Kalesan B, Serruys PW, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2011; 378: 1940-8.
[53]
Head SJ, Kaul S, Mack MJ, et al. The rationale for Heart Team decision-making for patients with stable, complex coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 2510-8.
[54]
Devito F, Zito A, Dachille A, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: design, clinical trials, and current applications. Coron Artery Dis 2016; 27: 151-8.
[55]
Ormiston JA, Serruys PW. Bioabsorbable coronary stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2: 255-60.
[56]
Abizaid A, Ribamar Costa J Jr, Bartorelli AL, et al. The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelve-month clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled. EuroIntervention 2015; 10(12): 1396-401.
[57]
Capodanno D, Gori T, Nef H, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry. EuroIntervention 2015; 10: 1144-53.
[58]
Puricel S, Arroyo D, Corpataux N, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 791-801.
[59]
Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Dudek D, et al. A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): An interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 43-54.
[60]
Ielasi A, Latib A, Naganuma T, et al. Early results following everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Int J Cardiol 2014; 173: 513-4.
[61]
Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1905-15.
[62]
Serruys PW, Ormiston J, van Geuns RJ, et al. Polylactide bioresorbable scaffold eluting everolimus for treatment of coronary stenosis: 5-Year follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67: 766-76.
[63]
Brugaletta S, Gori T, Low AF, et al. Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results of a propensity score matching comparison: the BVS-EXAMINATION Study (bioresorbable vascular scaffold-a clinical evaluation of everolimus eluting coronary stents in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8: 189-97.
[64]
Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The task force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2541-619.
[65]
Sato K, Panoulas VF, Naganuma T, Miyazaki T, Latib A, Colombo A. Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: Lessons from optical coherence tomography. Can J Cardiol 2014; 30(11): 1460.e15-7.
[66]
Revascularization with BVS or CABG in patients with advanced
CAD (RELEASE-BVS). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT02334826.
[68]
Carrel A. VIII. On the experimental surgery of the thoracic aorta and heart. Ann Surg 1910; 52: 83-95.
[69]
Vineberg A, Munro DD, Cohen H, Buller W. Four years’ clinical experience with internal mammary artery implantation in the treatment of human coronary artery insufficiency including additional experimental studies. J Thorac Surg 1955; 29: 1-32.
[70]
Langer RM, Vladimir P. Demikhov, a pioneer of organ transplantation. Transplant Proc 2011; 43: 1221-2.
[71]
Kolessov VI. Mammary artery-coronary artery anastomosis as method of treatment for angina pectoris. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1967; 54: 535-44.
[72]
Cooley DA, Dawson JT, Hallman GL, et al. Aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass. Results in 1492 patients, with particular reference to patients with complicating features. Ann Thorac Surg 1973; 16: 380-90.
[73]
Favaloro RG. Saphenous vein autograft replacement of severe segmental coronary artery occlusion: operative technique. Ann Thorac Surg 1968; 5: 334-9.
[74]
Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al. Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 1-6.
[75]
Calafiore AM, Contini M, Vitolla G, et al. Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting: Long-term clinical and angiographic results of in situ versus Y grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000; 120: 990-6.
[76]
Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Loop FD, et al. Two internal thoracic artery grafts are better than one. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 117: 855-72.
[77]
Kouchoukos NT, Wareing TH, Murphy SF, Pelate C, Marshall WG Jr. Risks of bilateral internal mammary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 1990; 49: 210-7.
[78]
Saso S, James D, Vecht JA, et al. Effect of skeletonization of the internal thoracic artery for coronary revascularization on the incidence of sternal wound infection. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 89: 661-70.
[79]
Taggart DP, Lees B, Gray A, et al. Protocol for the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART). A randomised trial to compare survival following bilateral versus single internal mammary grafting in coronary revascularisation. [ISRCTN46552265] Trials 2006; 7: 7.
[80]
Taggart DP, Altman DG, Gray AM, et al. Randomized trial to compare bilateral vs. single internal mammary coronary artery bypass grafting: 1-year results of the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART). Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 2470-81.
[81]
Acar C, Ramsheyi A, Pagny JY, et al. The radial artery for coronary artery bypass grafting: Clinical and angiographic results at five years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998; 116: 981-9.
[82]
Acar C, Jebara VA, Portoghese M, et al. Revival of the radial artery for coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 1992; 54: 652-9.
[83]
Desai ND, Cohen EA, Naylor CD, Fremes SE. Radial Artery Patency Study Investigators. A randomized comparison of radial-artery and saphenous-vein coronary bypass grafts. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2302-9.
[84]
Collins P, Webb CM, Chong CF, Moat NE. Radial Artery Versus Saphenous Vein Patency (RSVP) Trial Investigators. Radial artery versus saphenous vein patency randomized trial: five-year angiographic follow-up. Circulation 2008; 117: 2859-64.
[85]
Lichtenberg A, Klima U, Paeschke H, et al. Impact of multivessel coronary artery disease on outcome after isolated minimally invasive bypass grafting of the left anterior descending artery. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 487-91.
[86]
Loulmet D, Carpentier A, d’Attellis N, et al. Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting with the aid of robotic assisted instruments. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 118: 4-10.
[87]
Argenziano M, Katz M, Bonatti J, et al. Results of the prospective multicenter trial of robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81: 1666-74.
[88]
Angelini GD, Wilde P, Salerno TA, Bosco G, Calafiore AM. Integrated left small thoracotomy and angioplasty for multivessel coronary artery revascularisation. Lancet 1996; 347: 757-8.
[89]
Lloyd CT, Calafiore AM, Wilde P, et al. Integrated left anterior small thoracotomy and angioplasty for coronary artery revascularization. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68: 908-11.
[90]
Sardar P, Kundu A, Bischoff M, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 91: 203-12.
[91]
Giambruno V, Hafiz A, Fox SA, et al. Is the future of coronary arterial revascularization a hybrid approach?: The canadian experience across three centers. Innovations (Phila) 2017; 12: 82-6.
[92]
Panoulas VF, Colombo A, Margonato A, Maisano F. Hybrid Coronary revascularization promising, but yet to take off. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 85-97.
[93]
Farooq V, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet 2013; 381: 639-50.
[94]
Biancari F, Vasques F, Mikkola R, et al. Validation of EuroSCORE II in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93: 1930-5.
[95]
Yesin M, Çağdaş M, Kalçık M, et al. Comparison of syntax score and syntax score II to predict “no reflow phenomenon” in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2017; 33: 1883-9.
[96]
Melina G, Angeloni E, Refice S, et al. Clinical SYNTAX score predicts outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Am Heart J 2017; 188: 118-26.
Related Journals
Applied Drug Research, Clinical Trials and Regulatory Affairs
Article Metrics
54
2