Hariharan Sugumar1, Terase F Lancefield1, Nick Andrianopoulos2, Stephen J Duffy3, Andrew E Ajani4, Melanie Freeman1, Brian Buxton5, Angela L Brennan2, Bryan P Yan6, Diem T Dinh2, Julian A Smith7, Kerrie Charter1, Omar Farouque8, Christopher M Reid2, David J Clark9. 1. Department of Cardiology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Centre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics (CCRE), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Centre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics (CCRE), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Centre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics (CCRE), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Centre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics (CCRE), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Department of Cardiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China. 7. Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 8. Department of Cardiology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 9. Department of Cardiology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: clarkdavidj@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comorbidities, such as diabetes, affect revascularization strategy for coronary disease. We sought to determine if the degree of renal impairment affected long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with multi-vessel coronary disease (MVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: 8970 patients with MVD undergoing revascularization between 2004 and 2008, in two multi-center parallel PCI and CABG Australian registries were assigned to three groups based on their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n=1678:839), 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n=452:226) and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n=74:37). We used 2:1 propensity matching to compare 3306 patients undergoing primary CABG versus PCI. Shock, myocardial infarction (MI)<24 h, previous CABG, valve surgery or PCI were exclusions. Long-term mortality (mean 3.1 years) was compared with Cox-proportional hazard-adjusted modeling. Observed long-term mortality rates (CABG vs. PCI) were 4.5% vs. 4.3% p=0.84, 12.8% vs. 17.3% p=0.12, and 23.0% vs. 40.5% p=0.05 in the three strata, respectively. In patients with eGFR≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2, long-term mortality between PCI and CABG (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65-1.49, p=0.95) was similar. However, amongst patients with eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m2, there was a significant mortality hazard with PCI (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.32-3.04, p=0.001). In patients with eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2, there was a trend for hazard with PCI (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.80-3.46, p=0.17). CONCLUSION: Long-term mortality in MVD patients with preserved renal function was very low and similar between PCI and CABG. However there was a long-term mortality hazard associated with PCI amongst patients with moderate renal impairment.
BACKGROUND: Comorbidities, such as diabetes, affect revascularization strategy for coronary disease. We sought to determine if the degree of renal impairment affected long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with multi-vessel coronary disease (MVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: 8970 patients with MVD undergoing revascularization between 2004 and 2008, in two multi-center parallel PCI and CABG Australian registries were assigned to three groups based on their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n=1678:839), 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n=452:226) and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n=74:37). We used 2:1 propensity matching to compare 3306 patients undergoing primary CABG versus PCI. Shock, myocardial infarction (MI)<24 h, previous CABG, valve surgery or PCI were exclusions. Long-term mortality (mean 3.1 years) was compared with Cox-proportional hazard-adjusted modeling. Observed long-term mortality rates (CABG vs. PCI) were 4.5% vs. 4.3% p=0.84, 12.8% vs. 17.3% p=0.12, and 23.0% vs. 40.5% p=0.05 in the three strata, respectively. In patients with eGFR≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2, long-term mortality between PCI and CABG (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65-1.49, p=0.95) was similar. However, amongst patients with eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m2, there was a significant mortality hazard with PCI (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.32-3.04, p=0.001). In patients with eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2, there was a trend for hazard with PCI (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.80-3.46, p=0.17). CONCLUSION: Long-term mortality in MVD patients with preserved renal function was very low and similar between PCI and CABG. However there was a long-term mortality hazard associated with PCI amongst patients with moderate renal impairment.
Authors: David M Charytan; Manisha Desai; Maya Mathur; Noam M Stern; Maria M Brooks; Lukasz J Krzych; Gerhard C Schuler; Jan Kaehler; Alfredo M Rodriguez-Granillo; Whady Hueb; Barnaby C Reeves; Holger Thiele; Alfredo E Rodriguez; Piotr P Buszman; Paweł E Buszman; Rie Maurer; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 10.612