Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial

BACKGROUND We report the 5-year results of the SYNTAX trial, which compared coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of patients with left main coronary disease or three-vessel disease, to confirm findings at 1 and 3 years. METHODS The randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial with nested registries took place in 85 centres in the USA and Europe. A cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist at each centre assessed consecutive patients with de-novo three-vessel disease or left main coronary disease to determine suitability for study treatments. Eligible patients suitable for either treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to either PCI with a first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stent or to CABG. Patients suitable for only one treatment option were entered into either the PCI-only or CABG-only registries. We analysed a composite rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 5-year follow-up by Kaplan-Meier analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00114972. FINDINGS 1800 patients were randomly assigned to CABG (n=897) or PCI (n=903). More patients who were assigned to CABG withdrew consent than did those assigned to PCI (50 vs 11). After 5 years' follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimates of MACCE were 26·9% in the CABG group and 37·3% in the PCI group (p<0·0001). Estimates of myocardial infarction (3·8% in the CABG group vs 9·7% in the PCI group; p<0·0001) and repeat revascularisation (13·7%vs 25·9%; p<0·0001) were significantly increased with PCI versus CABG. All-cause death (11·4% in the CABG group vs 13·9% in the PCI group; p=0·10) and stroke (3·7%vs 2·4%; p=0·09) were not significantly different between groups. 28·6% of patients in the CABG group with low SYNTAX scores had MACCE versus 32·1% of patients in the PCI group (p=0·43) and 31·0% in the CABG group with left main coronary disease had MACCE versus 36·9% in the PCI group (p=0·12); however, in patients with intermediate or high SYNTAX scores, MACCE was significantly increased with PCI (intermediate score, 25·8% of the CABG group vs 36·0% of the PCI group; p=0·008; high score, 26·8%vs 44·0%; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION CABG should remain the standard of care for patients with complex lesions (high or intermediate SYNTAX scores). For patients with less complex disease (low SYNTAX scores) or left main coronary disease (low or intermediate SYNTAX scores), PCI is an acceptable alternative. All patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease should be reviewed and discussed by both a cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist to reach consensus on optimum treatment. FUNDING Boston Scientific.

[1]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  5-year clinical outcomes of the ARTS II (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study II) of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  P. Bannon,et al.  Drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 2011, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[3]  L. Mauri Why we still need randomized trials to compare effectiveness. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Timothy J Gardner,et al.  ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). , 2004, Circulation.

[5]  B. Horne,et al.  Surgical Revascularization Is Associated With Improved Long-Term Outcomes Compared With Percutaneous Stenting in Most Subgroups of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the Intermountain Heart Registry , 2007, Circulation.

[6]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  A global risk approach to identify patients with left main or 3-vessel disease who could safely and efficaciously be treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the SYNTAX Trial at 3 years. , 2012, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

[8]  E. Hannan,et al.  Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  W. Siegenthaler,et al.  Nonoperative dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. , 1979, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Gregg W Stone,et al.  Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  R. Califf,et al.  Selection of surgical or percutaneous coronary intervention provides differential longevity benefit. , 2006, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[12]  Akshay S. Desai,et al.  Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  G. Angelini,et al.  Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  Nikola Jagic,et al.  Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  B. Gersh,et al.  Ten-Year Follow-Up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of 3 Therapeutic Strategies for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease , 2010, Circulation.

[16]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. , 2011, European heart journal.

[17]  I. Palacios,et al.  Revascularization strategies of coronary multiple vessel disease in the Drug Eluting Stent Era: one year follow-up results of the ERACI III Trial. , 2006, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[18]  Soonchang Hong,et al.  Comparison of long-term outcome of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus drug-eluting stents in triple-vessel coronary artery disease. , 2012, American Journal of Cardiology.

[19]  B. Medalion,et al.  Drug-eluting stents compared with bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts for diabetic patients. , 2012, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[20]  P. Teirstein,et al.  Comparison of long-term (4-year) outcomes of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery narrowing treated with drug-eluting stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting. , 2010, The American journal of cardiology.

[21]  I. Palacios,et al.  Five-year follow-up of the Argentine randomized trial of coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II). , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  G. Schuler,et al.  Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  M. Jeong,et al.  Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgi , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  R. Higgins,et al.  Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  R. Hall,et al.  The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes study: 5-year follow-up of revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients with multivessel disease , 2010, Journal of cardiovascular medicine.

[26]  Sean M. O'Brien,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  P. Serruys,et al.  Three-Year Outcome After Coronary Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Multivessel Disease , 2004, Circulation.

[28]  J. Ornato,et al.  ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). , 2004, Circulation.

[29]  Seung‐Jung Park,et al.  Long-term comparison of drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary revascularization: 5-year outcomes from the Asan Medical Center-Multivessel Revascularization Registry. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[30]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[31]  O. Alfieri,et al.  5-year outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation versus coronary artery bypass graft for unprotected left main coronary artery lesions the Milan experience. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[32]  J. Pepper,et al.  Randomized, Controlled Trial of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Six-Year Follow-Up From the Stent or Surgery Trial (SoS) , 2008, Circulation.

[33]  R. Favaloro,et al.  Saphenous vein autograft replacement of severe segmental coronary artery occlusion: operative technique. , 1968, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[34]  D. Dudek,et al.  Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[35]  P. Serruys,et al.  Five-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention compared to bypass surgery in patients with multivessel disease involving the proximal left anterior descending artery: an ARTS-II sub-study. , 2011, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[36]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) study: design, rationale, and run-in phase. , 2006, American heart journal.

[37]  B. Gersh,et al.  Five-Year Follow-Up of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of 3 Therapeutic Strategies for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease , 2007 .

[38]  John R. Robinson,et al.  Influence of anastomotic techniques in totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass , 2006, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[39]  P. Serruys,et al.  The SYNTAX score and SYNTAX-based clinical risk scores. , 2011, Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[40]  M. Jeong,et al.  Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.