Comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-world Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial population

Objective: There are no prospective randomized trial data to guide decisions on optimal revascularization strategies for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction. In this analysis, we describe the comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this patient population. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of all CABG (n = 18,292) and PCIs (n = 55,438) performed from 2004 to 2014 among 7 medical centers reporting to the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria from the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial, there were 955 CABG and 718 PCI patients with an ejection fraction <= 35% and 2- or 3-vessel disease. Inverse probability weighting was used for risk adjustment. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included rates of 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, and incidence of repeat revascularization. Results: The median duration of follow-up was 4.3 years (range, 1.59-6.71 years). CABG was associated with improved long-term survival compared with PCI after risk adjustment (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.71; P < .01). Although CABG and PCI had similar 30-day mortality rates (P = .14), CABG was associated with a higher frequency of stroke (P < .001) and acute kidney injury (P < .001), whereas PCI was associated with a higher incidence of repeat revascularization (P < .001). Conclusions: Among patients with reduced ejection fraction and multivessel disease, CABG was associated with improved long-term survival compared with PCI. CABG should be strongly considered in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and multivessel coronary disease.