Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial.

AIMS Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered the standard of care for patients with three-vessel disease (3VD), but long-term comparative results from randomized trials of CABG vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) remain limited. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients with de novo 3VD or left main disease were randomly assigned to PCI with the paclitaxel-eluting first-generation stent or CABG in the SYNTAX trial. This pre-specified analysis presents the 5-year outcomes of patients with 3VD (n = 1095). The rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was significantly higher in patients with PCI compared with CABG (37.5 vs. 24.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention as opposed to CABG resulted in significantly higher rates of the composite of death/stroke/myocardial infarction (MI) (22.0 vs. 14.0%, respectively; P < 0.001), all-cause death (14.6 vs. 9.2%, respectively; P = 0.006), MI (9.2 vs. 4.0%, respectively; P = 0.001), and repeat revascularization (25.4 vs. 12.6%, respectively; P < 0.001); however, stroke was similar between groups at 5 years (3.0 vs. 3.5%, respectively; P = 0.66). Results were dependent on lesion complexity (P for interaction = 0.12); in patients with a low (0-22) SYNTAX score, PCI vs. CABG resulted in similar rates of MACCE (33.3% vs. 26.8%, respectively; P = 0.21) but significantly more repeat revascularization (25.4% vs. 12.6%, respectively; P = 0.038), while in intermediate (23-32) or high (≥ 33) SYNTAX score terciles, CABG demonstrated clear superiority in terms of MACCE, death, MI, and repeat revascularization. Differences in MACCE between PCI and CABG were larger in diabetics [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.30] than non-diabetics (HR = 1.51), although the P for interaction failed to reach significance for MACCE (P for interaction = 0.095) or any of the other endpoints. CONCLUSION Five-year results of patients with 3VD treated with CABG or PCI using the first-generation paclitaxel-eluting DES suggest that CABG should remain the standard of care as it resulted in significantly lower rates of death, MI, and repeat revascularization, while stroke rates were similar. For patients with low SYNTAX scores, PCI is an acceptable revascularization strategy, although at a price of significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT00114972.

[1]  M. Mack,et al.  Five-Year Outcomes in Patients With Left Main Disease Treated With Either Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Trial , 2014, Circulation.

[2]  V. Fuster,et al.  Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. , 2013, The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology.

[3]  Seung‐Jung Park,et al.  Trends in the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with the routine incorporation of fractional flow reserve in real practice. , 2013, European heart journal.

[4]  V. Falk,et al.  Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 1--the evolution over the first 50 years. , 2013 .

[5]  V. Falk,et al.  Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 2--optimizing outcomes and future prospects. , 2013, European heart journal.

[6]  C. V. van Mieghem,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery , 2013, Circulation.

[7]  S. Kaul,et al.  The rationale for Heart Team decision-making for patients with stable, complex coronary artery disease. , 2013, European heart journal.

[8]  M. Mack,et al.  Quantification of Incomplete Revascularization and its Association With Five-Year Mortality in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) Trial Validation of the Residual SYNTAX Score , 2013, Circulation.

[9]  M. Mack,et al.  Treatment of complex coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes: 5-year results comparing outcomes of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in the SYNTAX trial. , 2013, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[10]  M. Mack,et al.  Analysis of stroke occurring in the SYNTAX trial comparing coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in the treatment of complex coronary artery disease. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II , 2013, The Lancet.

[12]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  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 , 2013, The Lancet.

[13]  Michail I. Papafaklis,et al.  The negative impact of incomplete angiographic revascularization on clinical outcomes and its association with total occlusions: the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

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

[15]  M Habibi,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  M. Mack,et al.  Risk profile and 3-year outcomes from the SYNTAX percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting nested registries. , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[17]  M. Mack,et al.  Incidence, predictors and outcomes of incomplete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting: a subgroup analysis of 3-year SYNTAX data. , 2012, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[18]  D. Taggart Incomplete revascularization: appropriate and inappropriate. , 2012, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[19]  E. Omerovic,et al.  Lower risk of stent thrombosis and restenosis with unrestricted use of 'new-generation' drug-eluting stents: a report from the nationwide Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). , 2012, European heart journal.

[20]  Sean M. O'Brien,et al.  Trends in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database. , 2012, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[21]  G. Levine,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. , 2011, Circulation.

[22]  Laura Mauri,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. , 2011, Circulation.

[23]  F. Eberli,et al.  Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2011, The Lancet.

[24]  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.

[25]  J. Jokinen,et al.  Clinical value of intra-operative transit-time flow measurement for coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective angiography-controlled study. , 2011, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[26]  P. Serruys,et al.  Risk-benefit trade-offs in revascularisation choices. , 2011, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[27]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (esc) and the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery (eacts) Developed with the Special Contribution of the European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular I , 2022 .

[28]  U. Siebert,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention , 2009 .

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

[30]  G. Dehmer,et al.  Drug-eluting coronary artery stents. , 2009, American family physician.

[31]  S. Pocock,et al.  Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials , 2009, The Lancet.

[32]  P. Serruys,et al.  Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stenting and Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis With 5-Year Patient-Level Data From the ARTS, ERACI-II, MASS-II, and SoS Trials , 2008, Circulation.

[33]  Guido Germano,et al.  Optimal Medical Therapy With or Without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to Reduce Ischemic Burden: Results From the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) Trial Nuclear Substudy , 2008, Circulation.

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

[35]  William Wijns,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

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

[37]  M. Mack,et al.  Complex coronary anatomy in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: impact of complex coronary anatomy in modern bypass surgery? Lessons learned from the SYNTAX trial after two years. , 2011, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.