Comparison of effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy

The REvascularization in Ischemic HEart Failure Trial (REHEAT) is a nonrandomized, case-controlled, prospective study assessing the hypothesis that surgical and percutaneous revascularizations in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy are associated with comparable improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and functional status 12 months after myocardial revascularization. The study population consisted of 141 patients with LVEFs of < 40% and angiographically confirmed coronary artery disease. The primary end point was improvement in LVEF 12 months after intervention. Secondary end points were in-hospital major adverse events, length of hospitalization, exercise tolerance of treadmill stress testing after 12 months, 1-year survival, 1-year event-free survival, angina, and heart failure severity after 12 months. The case-controlled study included 55 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and 54 who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The incidence of 30-day major adverse events was higher in the CABG group (40.7% vs 9%, p = 0.0003), whereas duration of hospital stay was shorter in the PCI group (6.8 +/- 3.6 vs 9.2 +/- 2.1 days, p = 0.00001). Increase in LVEF was comparable after PCI and CABG (6.0 +/- 7.2% vs 4.4 +/- 9.0% p = 0.12). Long-term functional status based on treadmill stress testing was better after PCI (Student's t test, p = 0.0003) but, according to Canadian Cardiovascular Society and New York Heart Association classifications, was similar in the 2 treatment arms (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.01). Longterm survival was significantly better for patients after PCI (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.01); however, major adverse event-free survival was better after CABG (Cox-Mantel test, p = 0.0013). In conclusion, PCI and CABG are associated with comparable improvements in LVEF in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. PCI offers a better 1-year survival rate than CABG, but the incidence of repeat revascularization is lower with CABG. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.