Transcript Slide 1

PCI VS CABG
M . SALARIFAR , MD
Tehran Heart Center
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
1
PCI VS CABG
 From 1987 to 2003 326% increase in PCI
 Now more than 90% stenting
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
2
PCI VS CABG
Factors in patient selection
1. The need for mechanical revascularization as opposed
to medical treatment & risk factor modification .
2. The likelihood of success ( vessel size , calcification ,
tortuosity , side branches )
3. The risk and potential consequences of acute failure of
PCI ( Coronary anatomy % viable myocardium , LV
function .
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
3
PCI VS CABG
4.The likelihood of restenosis ( diabetes , prior restenosis
,
small vessel , long lesion , Total
occlusion , SVG disease) .
5. The need for complete revascularization based on
the
extent of CAD , severity of ischemia ,
LV function .
6. The presence of comorbid conditions
7. Patient preference
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
4
PCI VS CABG
Ideal cases of PCI
 Significant symptoms despite intensive
medical
therapy
 Low risk for complications
 Technical success rate
 No history of CHF
 EF > 40%
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
5
PCI VS CABG
Patients with increased risk for PCI
Advanced age
 Female gender
 Unstable angina
 CHF
 LM equivalent disease
 Multivessel disease
 DM
 Renal failure
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
6
PCI VS CABG
Current expectations for PCI
 Procedural success at least 90%
 Mortality < 1%
 Q ware MI < 1.5%
 Emergency by pass surgery 1 – 2 %
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
7
PCI VS CABG
PCI and Medical therapy
RCT comparing PCI with medical therapy are few
in
number and < 5000 patients , enrolled patients with
SVD
and prior stenting and enhanced
adjunctive
pharmaco therapy.
* Results :
 Better control of angina
 Functional capacity
 Quality of life
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
8
PCI VS CABG
No RCT to date has demonsrated a reduction in
death or MI with PCI compared with medical
thraphy for patient with chronic stable angina
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
9
PCI VS CABG
PCI and Medical therapy
 RITA – 2 showel excess of death and MI
 62% Patients multivessed disease
 COURAGE TRIAL :

2287 patients
 PCI did not reduce the risk of death or MI over a
medium
4.6 years follow up .
TIMe Trial : similar results in elderly patients .
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
10
PCI VS CABG
PCI and Medical therapy
Conclusion
 Most patients with chronic stable angina and class I –
II
symptoms
Medical treatment .
 PCI for patients with severe symptoms despite medical
therapy or patients with high risk criteria on Noninvasive
tests .
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
11
PCI VS CABG
PCI in LV dysfunction
In hospital & long term mortality was higher in LV
dysfunction .
EF ≤ 40%
11 %
EF 41 – 49%
4.5 % 1 Year Mortality
EF ≥ 50%
1.9 % 1 Year Mortality
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
1 Year Mortality
12
PCI VS CABG
CABG
 Garrett , Dennis , DeBakey : Bailoat CABG in 1964
 Fovoloro : late 1960 s
 Kolessov : use of IMA 1967
 Green : 1970
 % 26 in CABG since 1997
 In 2004 : 20% off – PUMP CABG
 Minimally Invasive
 Hybrid procedure
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
13
PCI VS CABG
CABG
Surgical outcomes
 Patient population of CABG
Higher risk
( older , 3VD , History of Revascularization , LV
dysfunction
Diabetes , Peripheral vascular disease )
 Out comes with CABG
C.H.T
Remain stable or improved
Dr.Salarifar
14
PCI VS CABG
CABG
Operative Mortality
Mortaliy of 503 , 478 CABG - only in the s td data
base 1997 – 1999: 3.05 %
2005 : 2 . 2 %
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
15
In THC data base :
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
16
PCI VS CABG
CABG Complications
Mojor morbidity ( death , stroke , Renal failure sternal
infection : 13.4% in 30 days
MI : 3.9%
 Respiratory complications
 Bleeding : 2-6 % reparation for bleeding
 Wound infection
 Post operative HTN
 Cerebrovascular complication
 Stroke 2.6%
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
17
PCI VS CABG
CABG Complications
AF : One of the most frequent complications of CABG
up to 40%
Risk of stroke
Use of beta blockers reoluces post operative AF
Brady arrhythmia : 0.8% need for permanent pacemaker
 Renal dysfunction
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
18
PCI VS CABG
Return to Employment
80% who were employed prior to CABG
Return
to work
Patient undergoing CABG return to work 6
W
later than PCI
But long term employment is similar .
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
19
PCI VS CABG
SVG Patency
Early occlusion : 8 – 12 %
1 year occlusion : 15 – 30 %
occlusion
1 – 6 y occlusion : 2%
Annually
6 – 10 occlusion : 4%
Annually
At 10 y
:50% SVG occlusion and 20 -40%
significant stenosis in Remaining
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
20
PCI VS CABG
Arterial graft patency
IMA graft patency rate 95% 1 y 88% 5 y ,
83% 10 y .
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
21
PCI VS CABG
Indications for Revascularization
CABG :
 Significant left main disease : Regardless of the
severity
of symptoms or LV dysfunction
 Patients with 3 VD that Includes LAD proximal lesion
&
LV dysfunction
 Patients with 2 VD with LAD proximal lesion &
LV
C.H.T
dysfunction or high risk non invasive tests
Dr.Salarifar
22
PCI VS CABG
Indications for Revascularization
PCI :
 In patients with SVD the aim of procedure
is
of sever
relief of symptoms or objective evidence
ischemia
 In patients with angina who are not high risk
,
similar .
C.H.T
medical treatment , PCI & CABG are
Dr.Salarifar
23
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
24
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
25
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
26
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
27
PCI VS CABG
PCI or CABG witch strategy ?
 SVD : PCI
2VD
Multivessel disease : PCI as initial strategy especially in
patients with good LV function , suitable anatomy and
patient preference .
CABG : Severe LAD proximal lesion , DM LV dysfunction ,
LM lesion , Diffuse disease .
Advanced age and comorbidity : PCI is better
Younger patient < 50 y : PCI is initial strategy
CASS Registry : Impaired survivial in young patients
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
28
PCI VS CABG
PCI VS CABG
Observational studies:
 Recent studies after stenting 60/000 patients with
multivessel disease treated with stenting or CABG
in the newyork state Registry (1997 – 2000 ) :
Higher survival with CABG after adjustment for
medical comorbidities .
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
29
PCI VS CABG
PCI VS CABG
Randomized trials :
ARTS trial ;
Death , MI , CVA and one – year mortality were similar .
CK – MB more than twice in CABG and was a predictor
of
poor outcome .
In PCI groupe DM was the main factor for poor out come
PCI was associated with a greater need for
Repeat
Revascularization .
TVR was Higher in stenting groupe .
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
30
PCI VS CABG
BARI
 Diabetic patients with CABG had better
survival at two years .
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
31
PCI VS CABG
Recent Publications
NENGLJMED 358 : 4 January 2008
* DES VS . CABG in multivessel disease
Newyork state Registry ( oct 2003 – Dec 2004 )
 More than 17000 patients ( 9963 DES , 7437 CABG )
 CABG was associated with lower mortality , MI
and
C.H.T
repeat revascularization
Dr.Salarifar
32
PCI VS CABG
The – MAIN – COMPARE Registry
 Stenting VS . CAGB for LM
1102 stenting & 1138 CABG in Korea 2000 -2006
 No significant difference in Death , MI , stroke
 Higher Rate of TVR in stenting
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
33
ACC/AHA Guidelines for Revascularization with PCI
and CABG in Patients with Stable Angina
Class
I (indicated)
C.H.T
Indication
Evidence
1. CABG for patients with significant left main coronary disease
A
2. CABG for patients with triple-vessel disease. The survival benefit is
A
greater in patients with abnormal LV function (ejection fraction <0.50)
3. CABG for patients with double-vessel disease with significant
A
proximal LADCAD and either abnormal LV function
(ejection fraction <50%) or demonstrable ischemia on noninvasive testing
4. PCI for patients with double- or triple-vessel disease with significant
B
proximal LAD CAD, who have anatomy suitable for catheter-based therapy
and normal LV function and who do not have treated diabetes
5. PCI or CABG for patients with single- or double-vessel CAD without
B
significant proximal LAD CAD but with a large area of viable myocardium and
high-risk criteria on noninvasive testing
Dr.Salarifar
34
Class
I (indicated)
C.H.T
Indication
Evidence
6. CABG for patients with single- or double-vessel CAD without
C
significant proximal LAD CAD who have survived sudden cardiac
death or sustained ventricular tachycardia
7. In patients with prior PCI, CABG or PCI for recurrent stenosis
C
associated with a large area of viable myocardium or high-risk criteria on
noninvasive testing
8. PCI or CABG for patients who have not been successfully treated
B
by medical therapy and can undergo revascularization with acceptable risk
Dr.Salarifar
35
Class
Indication
Evidence*
1. Repeat CABG for patients with multiple saphenous
C
vein graft stenoses, especially when there is significant
(good
supportive stenosis of a graft supplying the LAD; it may be appropriate
to use PCI for focal saphenous vein graft lesions or multiple
evidence) stenoses in poor candidates for reoperative surgery
2. Use of PCI or CABG for patients with single- or double- B
vessel CAD without significant proximal LAD disease but
with a moderate area of viable myocardium and
demonstrable ischemia on noninvasive testing
3. Use of PCI or CABG for patients with single-vessel
B
disease with significant proximal LAD disease
IIa
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
36
Class
Indication
Evidence*
1.Compared with CABG, PCI for patients with doubleB
or triple-vessel disease with significant proximal LAD
(weak
supportive CAD,who have anatomy suitable for catheter-based therapy
and who have treated diabetes or abnormal LV function
C
evidence) 2. Use of PCI for patients with significant left main
coronary disease who are not candidates for CABG
3. PCI for patients with single- or double-vessel CAD
C
without significant proximal LAD CAD who have survived
sudden cardiac death or sustained ventricular tachycardia
IIb
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
37
Class
Indication
Evidence*
III
1. Use of PCI or CABG for patients with single- or
C
(not
double-vessel CAD without significant proximal LAD
indicated) CAD, who have mild symptoms that are unlikely due to
myocardial ischemia, or who have not received and adequate
trial of medical therapy and
a. have only a small area of viable myocardium
Or
b. have no demonstrable ischemia on noninvasive testing
2. Use of PCI or CABG for patients with borderline
C
coronary stenoses (50-60% diameter in locations other
than the left main coronary artery) and no demonstrable
ischemia on noninvasive testing
3. Use of PCI or CABG for patients with insignificant
C
coronary stenosis (<50% diameter)
4. Use of PCI in patients with significant left main
B
coronary artery disease who are candidates for CABG
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
38
‫حیرت اندر حیرت است ای یار من‬
‫این نه کار توست و نه هم کار من‬
‫‪39‬‬
‫‪Dr.Salarifar‬‬
‫‪C.H.T‬‬
C.H.T
Dr.Salarifar
40