Complete Revascularization Strategies in Women and Men With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease.

This prespecified substudy of the randomized Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease (BIOVASC) trial aimed to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, stratified by gender. The primary end point consisted of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular events at 1-year follow-up. The secondary end points included the individual components of the primary composite and major bleedings. We used Cox regression models to relate randomized treatment with study end points. We evaluated the multiplicative and additive interactions between gender and randomized treatment. The BIOVASC trial enrolled 338 women and 1,187 men. Women were older than men (median age 71.6 vs 63.7 years, p <0.001) and had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.003), renal insufficiency (7.7% vs 4.4%, p = 0.015), and hypertension (60.4% vs 51.7%, p = 0.005). In women, the composite primary outcome occurred in 7.3% versus 12.9% (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 1.08) in patients randomly allocated to ICR and SCR, respectively, and in men in 7.7% versus 8.4% (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.34), with no evidence of a differential effect (interaction pmultiplicative = 0.20, padditive = 0.87). No evidence of heterogeneity between women and men was found when comparing ICR with SCR in terms of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, no differential treatment effect was found when comparing ICR versus SCR in women or men presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Non-ST-Elevation Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There is lack of evidence regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with that of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in this subset of patients. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge were searched for studies including patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD who underwent PCI or CABG up to September 1, 2021. The primary end point of the meta-analysis was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year. The analysis was conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Four prospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,542 patients who underwent CABG and 1,630 patients who underwent PCI. No significant differences were found in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, p = 0.51), MI (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.51, p = 0.46), or stroke (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.35, p = 0.42) between PCI and CABG. Repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the CABG group (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p <0.00001). In patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD, 1-year mortality, MI, and stroke were similar between patients treated with either PCI or CABG, but the repeat revascularization rate was higher after PCI.

Cardiac Catheterizations in Patients With Prior Coronary Bypass Surgery: Impact of Access Strategy on Short-Term Safety and Long-Term Efficacy Outcomes.

Little data are available on access strategy outcomes for cardiac catheterizations in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). We investigated the effect of transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) on short-term major vascular complications (MVC) and long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, 1084 patients met our inclusion criteria (TRA = 469; TFA = 615). The cumulative incidence for the primary safety endpoint MVC at 30 days (a composite of major bleeding, retroperitoneal hematoma, dissection, pseudoaneurysm, and arteriovenous fistula) was lower with TRA (0.7% vs 3.0%, P < .01) and this difference remained significant after propensity score adjustment (odds ratio: 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.83; P = .024). The cumulative incidence for the primary efficacy endpoint MACE at 36 months (a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and urgent target vessel revascularization) was 28.6% with TRA and 27.6% with TFA, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves showed no difference for the primary efficacy endpoint (P = .65). Contrast use (mL) was significantly lower with TRA (130 [100-180] vs 150 [100-213], P < .01). In conclusion, in patients with prior CABG, TRA was associated with significantly fewer short-term MVC and contrast use, but not with a difference in long-term MACE, compared with TFA.