Coronary disease & ACSCohort study

Percutaneous vs. surgical revascularization of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: the SWEDEHEART registry

Eur Heart JPublished

  • Registry-based cohort study
  • nationwide registry (SWEDEHEART)
  • multilevel logistic regression
  • double-robust adjustment with instrumental variable method

Authors' conclusion

Coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with lower risks of mortality, MI, repeat revascularization, and heart failure in patients with NSTEMI, particularly in high-risk subgroups. However, its survival benefit lessens with shorter life expectancy.

Study context

Population
Revascularized patients with NSTEMI and multivessel disease, Sweden, January 2005 to June 2022
Participants
57,097 patients
Exposure
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)
  • PCIn = 42,190
  • CABGn = 14,907reference
Outcome
All-cause mortality (in-hospital and long-term)
Follow-up
Median 7.1 years

Main finding

All-cause mortality

Adjusted odds ratio

1.67

95% CI 1.54–1.81

PCI vs CABG
aOR 1.67 (95% CI 1.54–1.81)

As reported in the abstract

Observational data: associations, not effects.

Secondary outcomes

OutcomeaOR (95% CI)
MI · median follow-up 7.1 years1.51 (1.41–1.62)
Repeat revascularization · median follow-up 7.1 years3.01 (2.57–3.51)
HF · median follow-up 7.1 years1.15 (1.07–1.25)

Stroke · median follow-up 7.1 years

No significant difference in stroke

Survival by subgroup and time horizon · within 15 years

CABG provided longer survival within 15 years, especially in patients under 70 years, with left main disease or LV dysfunction; benefit diminished over shorter time horizons

Original publication

Percutaneous vs. surgical revascularization of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: the SWEDEHEART registry. Eur Heart J. Published 27 November 2024. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae700

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