ABSTRACT
This case challenges the conventional preference for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and multivessel disease. Current guidelines generally recommend CABG, especially in the context of LMCAD. However, our case involves a male patient with diabetes with LMCAD and extensive multivessel disease who was successfully treated with PCI, demonstrating a favorable outcome. Despite the high-risk profile, including a SYNTAX score of 28, the PCI approach was selected. This decision was supported by evidence suggesting comparable outcomes between PCI and CABG in similar patients. Our case highlights the potential of PCI as not just a viable, but potentially superior alternative in specific high-risk patients with diabetes, contrary to the prevailing belief in favor of CABG for all patients with left main involvement.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Bypass , Coronary Artery Disease , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Humans , Male , Clinical Decision-Making , Coronary Angiography , Coronary Artery Bypass/adverse effects , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Artery Disease/surgery , Coronary Artery Disease/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Patient Selection , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are considered a first-line rhythm-control strategy, whereas catheter ablation is a reasonable alternative. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the prevalence, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients with PerAF who underwent catheter ablation as a first or second-line strategy. METHODS: This multicenter observational study included consecutive patients with PerAF who underwent first-time ablation between January 2020 and September 2021 in 9 medical centers in the United States. Patients were divided into those who underwent ablation as first-line therapy and those who had ablation as second-line therapy. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,083 patients underwent first-time ablation for PerAF. Of these, 1,086 (52%) underwent ablation as a first-line rhythm-control treatment. Compared with patients treated with AADs as first-line therapy, these patients were predominantly male (72.6% vs 68.1%; P = 0.03), with a lower frequency of hypertension (64.0% vs 73.4%; P < 0.001) and heart failure (19.1% vs 30.5%; P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 325.9 ± 81.6 days, arrhythmia-free survival was similar between the groups (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.92-1.41); however, patients in the second-line ablation strategy were more likely to continue receiving AAD therapy (41.5% vs 15.9%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A first-line ablation strategy for PerAF is prevalent in the United States, particularly in men with fewer comorbidities. More data are needed to identify patients with PerAF who derive benefit from an early intervention strategy.
