Coronary disease & ACSCohort study

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

Eur Heart JPublished

  • Retrospective cohort study
  • multicentre
  • registry-based
  • propensity-score inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted

Authors' conclusion

In this multi-centre IPTW analysis, patients with severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy undergoing revascularization by CABG rather than PCI showed improved long-term survival.

Study context

Population
Patients with severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%) undergoing revascularization, Australian and New Zealand registries, 2005–2018; STEMI and cardiogenic shock excluded
Participants
2,042 patients
Exposure
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
  • CABGn = 1,451
  • PCIn = 591reference
Outcome
Long-term National Death Index-linked mortality
Follow-up
Up to 10 years following revascularization

Main finding

Long-term mortality · median follow-up 4.0 (IQR 2.2-6.8) years

Adjusted hazard ratio

0.59

95% CI 0.45–0.79

P = 0.001

CABG vs PCI
adjusted HR 0.59 (95% CI 0.45–0.79); P = 0.001

As reported in the abstract

Observational data: associations, not effects.

Further findings

OutcomeaOR (95% CI)P value
In-hospital mortality1.42 (0.41–4.96)P = 0.58
Outcomeexponentiated coefficient (95% CI)P value
Length of hospital stay · increased with CABG3.58 (3.00–4.28)P < 0.001

Safety

OutcomeaOR (95% CI)P value
Peri-procedural stroke · increased with CABG19.6 (4.21–91.6)P < 0.001

Original publication

Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy: long-term survival. Eur Heart J. Published 29 October 2024. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae672

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it