Ahmad Shoaib1, Mohamed Mohamed1, Muhammad Rashid1, Safi U Khan2, Purvi Parwani3, Tahmeed Contractor3, Hafsa Shaikh4, Waqar Ahmed5, Eoin Fahy1, James Prior6, David Fischman7, Rodrigo Bagur1, Mamas A Mamas8. 1. Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA. 4. Department of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 5. King Fahd Armed Forces Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 6. Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom; Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Trust Headquarters, St. George's Hospital, Stafford, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA. 8. Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom; Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: mamasmamas1@yahoo.co.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the management strategies, temporal trends, and clinical outcomes of patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample database from the United States (January 2004-September 2015), identified all inpatient MI admissions (7,250,768 records) and stratified according to history of CABG (group 1, CABG-naive [94%]; group 2, prior CABG [6%]). RESULTS: Patients in group 2 were older, less likely to be female, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with group 1. More patients underwent coronary angiography (68% vs 48%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (44% vs 26%) in group 1 compared with group 2. Following multivariable logistic regression analyses, the adjusted odd ratio (OR) of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.005; P=.11), all-cause mortality (OR, 1; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04; P=.6) and major bleeding (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03; P=.54) were similar to group 1. Lower adjusted odds of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.72; P<.001), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.53; P<.001), and acute ischemic stroke (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86; P<.001) were observed in group 2 patients who underwent PCI compared with those managed medically without any increased risk of major bleeding (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.23; P=.26). CONCLUSIONS: In this national cohort, MI patients with prior-CABG had a higher risk profile, but similar in-hospital adverse outcomes compared with CABG-naive patients. Prior-CABG patients who received PCI had better in-hospital clinical outcomes compared to those who received medical management.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the management strategies, temporal trends, and clinical outcomes of patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample database from the United States (January 2004-September 2015), identified all inpatient MI admissions (7,250,768 records) and stratified according to history of CABG (group 1, CABG-naive [94%]; group 2, prior CABG [6%]). RESULTS:Patients in group 2 were older, less likely to be female, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with group 1. More patients underwent coronary angiography (68% vs 48%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (44% vs 26%) in group 1 compared with group 2. Following multivariable logistic regression analyses, the adjusted odd ratio (OR) of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.005; P=.11), all-cause mortality (OR, 1; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04; P=.6) and major bleeding (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03; P=.54) were similar to group 1. Lower adjusted odds of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.72; P<.001), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.53; P<.001), and acute ischemic stroke (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86; P<.001) were observed in group 2 patients who underwent PCI compared with those managed medically without any increased risk of major bleeding (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.23; P=.26). CONCLUSIONS: In this national cohort, MI patients with prior-CABG had a higher risk profile, but similar in-hospital adverse outcomes compared with CABG-naive patients. Prior-CABG patients who received PCI had better in-hospital clinical outcomes compared to those who received medical management.