- Email: [email protected]
Comparison of Bare-Metal Stenting With Minimally Invasive Bypass Surgery for Stenosis of the Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS © 2013 BY THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY FOUNDATION PUBLISHED BY ELSEVIER INC.
VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 ISSN 1936-8798/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2012.09.008
Comparison of Bare-Metal Stenting With Minimally Invasive Bypass Surgery for Stenosis of the Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery 10-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial Stephan Blazek, MD,* David Holzhey, MD,† Camelia Jungert, BSC,* Michael A. Borger, MD, PHD,† Georg Fuernau, MD,* Steffen Desch, MD,* Ingo Eitel, MD,* Suzanne de Waha, MD,* Philipp Lurz, MD,* Gerhard Schuler, MD,* Friedrich-Wilhelm Mohr, MD,† Holger Thiele, MD* Leipzig, Germany Objectives The aim of this prospective, randomized trial was to assess the 10-year long-term safety and effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) for the treatment of proximal left anterior descending (LAD) lesions. Background Long-term follow-up data comparing PCI and MIDCAB surgery for isolated proximal LAD lesions are sparse. Methods Patients with significant isolated proximal LAD stenoses were randomized either to PCI with bare-metal stents (n ⫽ 110) or MIDCAB (n ⫽ 110). At 10 years, data were obtained with respect to the primary endpoint (death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization). Angina was assessed by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification. Results Follow-up was conducted for 212 patients at a median time of 10.3 years. There were no significant differences in the binary primary composite endpoint (47% vs. 36%; p ⫽ 0.12) and hard endpoints (death and infarction) between PCI and MIDCAB. However, a higher target vessel revascularization rate in the PCI group (34% vs. 11%; p ⬍ 0.01) was observed. Clinical symptoms improved significantly from baseline and were similar between both treatment groups. Conclusions At 10-year follow-up, PCI and MIDCAB in isolated proximal LAD lesions yielded similar long-term outcomes regarding the primary composite clinical endpoint. Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the PCI group. (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2013;6:20 – 6) © 2013 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
From the *Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiology, University of Leipzig, Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany; and the †Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Leipzig, Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Drs. Blazek and Holzhey contributed equally to this paper. Drs. Mohr and Thiele should be considered as shared senior authors. Manuscript received September 14, 2012; accepted September 27, 2012.
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
Previous trials have demonstrated that clinical prognosis in patients with untreated high-grade proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending (LAD) artery is poor due to the large territory of myocardium at risk (1,2). See page 27
Established treatment options are conventional bypass grafting, minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) either with bare-metal stents (BMS) or drugeluting stents (DES) (3– 6). In randomized trials (using BMS) and a meta-analysis comparing stenting versus MIDCAB, a significantly higher reintervention rate after PCI and similar results for mortality and myocardial infarction at 6-month follow-up have been demonstrated (4,7,8). At 5-year follow-up, these results were confirmed (9). To further elucidate advantages or disadvantages of PCI against MIDCAB in the long term, we report the 10-year follow-up of the largest randomized, prospective trial comparing MIDCAB surgery with PCI using BMS for treatment of patients with isolated lesions of the proximal LAD. Methods The detailed design of this trial has been described previously (4). In summary, patients with isolated high-grade lesions (ⱖ75% diameter stenosis on visual assessment, no total occlusion, no bifurcation lesion of the left main and the first diagonal branch) of the proximal LAD were included. A cardiac surgeon and a cardiologist had to find a consensus on patient eligibility. Balanced randomization was performed after written informed consent and patients were assigned to stenting or surgery. Exclusion criteria were acute coronary syndromes, additional significant coronary lesions, significant valvular heart disease, and previous interventional or surgical treatment for coronary artery disease. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. Stenting procedure. Stenting with BMS was performed according to standard practice (4). Patients received aspirin 100 mg/day indefinitely and ticlopidine or clopidogrel for 4 weeks (following a loading dose the day before the procedure). Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery.
MIDCAB surgery was performed through a left anterolateral minithoracotomy on the beating heart without cardiopulmonary bypass (4). The left internal thoracic artery was used as bypass graft. Aspirin (100 mg/day) treatment was recommended indefinitely. Follow-up. Data were collected by a structured patient interview at 5 years—results have been published previously (9)—and again 10 years after randomization. Reported clinical events were confirmed by contact with the general
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
21
practitioner, referring cardiologist, and/or the treating hospital. Death was defined as death from any cause. Death was regarded as cardiac in origin unless obvious noncardiac causes could be identified. In case of any doubt, death was counted as cardiac. For in-hospital periprocedural myocardial infarction, the previously chosen definition was used with increase of the creatine kinase-myocardial band (CKMB) value 3⫻ the normal value or if the ratio of CK-MB to total CK exceeded 0.1 (4). At follow-up, the standard universal definitions of myocardial infarction criteria were applied (10). Any new revascularization by either PCI or bypass grafting was further divided into target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and nontarget vessel revascularization categories. For stent thrombosis definition, the Academic Research Consortium criteria were applied (11). Abbreviations The initial study protocol at and Acronyms 6-month follow-up mandated a complete clinical work-up, inBMS ⴝ bare-metal stent(s) cluding symptom-limited exerCI ⴝ confidence interval cise stress test and coronary anCK-MB ⴝ creatine kinasegiography. For asymptomatic myocardial band patients, no further scheduled DES ⴝ drug-eluting stent(s) routine noninvasive or invasive HR ⴝ hazard ratio studies were performed at longIQR ⴝ interquartile range term follow-up. Repeated interLAD ⴝ left anterior ventions were clinically driven descending and performed in case of recurMACE ⴝ major adverse rence of angina and/or a positive cardiac events stress test. Quantitative angiogMIDCAB ⴝ minimally raphy was not performed in invasive direct coronary these patients, except for the artery bypass mandatory initial 6-month anPCI ⴝ percutaneous giography. The choice of all recoronary intervention current revascularization proceTVR ⴝ target vessel dures was left to the discretion of revascularization the investigator. All events were adjudicated by an event monitoring committee consisting of an experienced cardiologist and cardiovascular surgeon. Endpoints. The primary composite endpoint was freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction, and the need for repeated TVR. Secondary endpoints were each individual component of the primary endpoint. For the combined MACE rate, to avoid double counting of patients with more than 1 event, each patient contributed only once to the composite MACE endpoint and the first occurring event was counted regardless of severity. The clinical status was assessed by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society’s classification, and the need for antianginal drugs at 10-year follow-up was documented.
22
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
Results 220 patients randomized
BMS (n=110)
MIDCAB (n=110)
Coronary angiography at 6 months follow-up
Median follow-up time 10.3 years (IQR 9.4;11.4)
3 lost 10-year follow-up
5 lost 10-year follow-up
Figure 1. Trial Profile BMS ⫽ bare-metal stent(s); IQR ⫽ interquartile range; MIDCAB ⫽ minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery.
Statistical analysis. The initial sample size chosen to achieve 95% statistical power with a type I error of 5% by use of 2-sided Fisher exact test was based on the assumption that 30% of the patients treated by stenting with BMS and 9% treated by MIDCAB surgery would reach the combined primary endpoint. Accounting for losses to follow-up, 10 more patients in each group were included, resulting in 220 randomized patients. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients lost to follow-up were included in the analysis until their last known status. Continuous parameters were described as mean ⫾ SD or as median (interquartile range [IQR]) if not normally distributed. Categorical variables were expressed as number and percentage of patients. Differences between the treatment groups were assessed by Fisher exact test or the chi-square test for categorical variables with nominal scales. For continuous data with normal distribution, unpaired Student t test was used. Additionally, exploratory landmark analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method were performed for the primary composite endpoint, myocardial infarction, and TVR. The landmark was chosen at 7 months; therefore, the first analysis covers the period from 0 to 7 months and the second the period from 7 months to 10 years. The rationale for choosing the 7-month landmark was that it became evident that most TVR events in the PCI group occurred early during the first months of follow-up. Any patient with an event before the 7-month landmark was excluded from further analysis for the second period regarding the composite endpoint. For the TVR landmark analysis, those patients with prior TVR or death were excluded. The statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 17.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). A 2-tailed p value ⬍0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Between June 1997 and June 2001, 220 consecutive patients with isolated proximal LAD stenosis were randomized to either surgery (n ⫽ 110) or stenting (n ⫽ 110). Initially, 71% of patients had type B2 or C lesions and the percentage diameter stenosis was 82.8 ⫾ 7.8%. All patients received the assigned treatment. The 10-year long-term follow-up was completed for 212 patients (96%). Despite intensive effort, long-term follow-up information could not be obtained for 8 patients. For survival analysis, data until their last known status were used; median follow-up time was 10.3 years (IQR: 9.4 to 11.4 years) (Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the treatment groups and have been published previously (4). Primary composite endpoint. In the binary event analysis at 10 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of the combined primary endpoint in PCI versus MIDCAB (relative risk: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 1.05; p ⫽ 0.12) (Table 1). However, when a time-to-event analysis was used, the difference in event rates was statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.98; p ⫽ 0.04) (Fig. 2A). Landmark analysis showed that this difference was mainly driven by a higher event rate in the PCI group in the first months (period 0 to 7 months: HR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.57; p ⬍ 0.01) (Fig. 2B). In contrast, for the period from 7 months to 10 years, the difference between the event curves was no longer statistically significant (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.3; p ⫽ 0.40) (Fig. 2C). The binary incidence of each individual endpoint at 10-year follow-up is shown in Table 1. Secondary endpoints. REVASCULARIZATION. In the PCI group, the need for TVR was significantly higher compared with that of the MIDCAB group at 10 years (34% vs. 11%, p ⬍ 0.01) (Table 1). This was also true when a time-toevent method of analysis was used (Fig. 3A). Landmark analysis revealed that this difference was largely caused by a higher TVR rate in the first analysis Table 1. MACE at Long-Term Follow-Up (10 Years) Stenting MIDCAB Relative Risk (n ⴝ 107) (n ⴝ 105) p Value (95% CI) Death Cardiac death Myocardial infarction Target vessel revascularization
25 (23)
24 (23)
1.00
0.98 (0.51–1.35)
9 (8)
10 (10)
0.81
1.07 (0.65–1.75)
5 (5)
12 (11)
0.08
1.78 (0.84–3.76)
36 (34)
11 (11)
⬍0.001 0.56 (0.44–0.71)
Death or myocardial infarction
26 (24)
30 (29)
0.53
1.11 (0.83–1.54)
Any major adverse cardiac event
50 (47)
38 (36)
0.12
0.81 (0.62–1.05)
Values are n (%) per clinical event category. CI ⫽ confidence interval; MACE ⫽ major adverse cardiac events; MIDCAB ⫽ minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass.
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
A
B
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
0.8 Event free survival
Event free survival
0.8 0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
P<0.01; log-rank
P=0.04; log-rank
0.0
23
0.0 0
12
24 36 48 60 72 84 96 Months after randomization
108 120
0
0
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Number at risk (Months)
110
71
71
70
70
67
66
65
61
56
43
Stenting
110
96
93
90
85
84
80
79
76
71
55
MIDCAB
C
2 3 4 5 Months after randomization
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Number at risk (Months)
110
107
106
104
101
98
94
75
Stenting
110
103
102
102
100
99
99
99
MIDCAB
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
0.8 Event free survival
1
0.6
0.4 0.2 P=0.40; log-rank
0.0 12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Months after randomization
7
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Number at risk (Months)
76
72
71
69
67
63
61
59
55
50
37
Stenting
99
96
93
89
84
81
75
72
68
63
47
MIDCAB
Figure 2. Freedom From Combined Primary Study Endpoint Kaplan-Meier curve showing freedom from major adverse cardiac events during 10 years of follow-up (A), time frame 0 to 7 months (B), and 7 months to 10 years (C). The log-rank test was used to compare stenting and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB). The dotted black lines in B and C represent the 7-month landmark.
period from 0 to 7 months (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.47; p ⬍ 0.01) (Fig. 3B), whereas in the second period from 7 months to 10 years, the difference in event curves was no longer significant (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.23; p ⫽ 0.53) (Fig. 3C). Some patients had multiple TVRs. The mean number of TVR events per patient in the stenting group who had repeated revascularization was 1.37 ⫾ 0.69 (26 patients had 1, 8 had 2, 1 had 3, and 1 had 4 TVRs). Overall, in the interventional group, 49 TVRs were performed in 36 patients (30 [83%] PCIs, 4 [11%] surgical, 2 [6%] PCIs and surgical). In the surgical group, 8% required TVR at 6-month follow-up; additional revascularization was necessary in 1% at 5-year follow-up and increased by another 1% at longterm follow-up. The mean number of TVRs per patient in the MIDCAB group was 1.18 ⫾ 0.60. A total of 13 TVRs (9 [69%] PCIs and 4 [31%] surgical) were performed in 11 patients in the surgery group (10 patients had 1 and 1 patient had 3 TVRs).
Proximal LAD restenosis or bypass dysfunction with a necessity for target lesion revascularization occurred in 33 patients in the PCI group and 9 in the MIDCAB group (30% vs. 9%, p ⬍ 0.001). Nontarget vessel revascularization procedures at 10-year follow-up were necessary in 19 patients in the stenting group and 12 in the MIDCAB group (17% vs. 11%, p ⫽ 0.24), reflecting the progressive nature of coronary artery disease. DEATH AND MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION. All-cause mortality did not differ between the 2 treatment groups at 10-year follow-up (PCI 23% vs. MIDCAB 23%, p ⫽ 1.00) (Table 1). In addition, cardiac death rates were similar (Table 1). The cardiac deaths in the stenting group included 1 death from unknown cause, 2 infarctions, and 6 deaths due to congestive heart failure. The 10 cardiac deaths after surgery included 2 perioperative deaths and 1 death at follow-up from unknown cause. Three patients died of heart failure and 4 of acute myocardial infarction.
24
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
B
A
0
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
Event free survival
0.8
Stenting MIDCAB
8
6
0.6
4
0.4
2
0.2
P<0.01; log-rank
P<0.01; log-rank
0
0.0 0
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108 120
0
1
Months after randomization 0
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Number at risk (Months)
110
72
72
71
71
68
67
66
62
57
44
Stenting
110
99
96
93
89
87
83
82
78
74
57
MIDCAB
C
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Number at risk (Months)
110
107
106
105
102
99
95
76
Stenting
110
105
104
104
103
102
102
102
MIDCAB
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
0.8 Event free survival
2
Months after randomization
0.6
0.4
0.2 P=0.53; log-rank
0.0 12
24
36 48 60 72 84 96 Months after randomization
108 120
7
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Number at risk (Months)
76
74
73
73
69
68
67
63
58
44
24
Stenting
98
93
90
86
85
81
80
78
74
57
25
MIDCAB
Figure 3. Freedom From TVR Kaplan-Meier curve showing freedom from target vessel revascularization (TVR) during 10 years of follow-up (A), time frame 0 to 7 months (B), and 7 months to 10 years (C). The log-rank test was used to compare stenting and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB). The dotted black lines in B and C represent the 7-month landmark.
The rate of myocardial infarctions was not statistically different between stenting and surgery at 10-year follow-up (5% vs. 11%, p ⫽ 0.08). Landmark analysis showed, despite the numerical higher event rates in the MIDCAB group, no statistically significant differences in the 0 to 7 months period (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.14 to 2.48; p ⫽ 0.49) or 7 months to 10 years period (HR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.39; p ⫽ 0.10). Except for 2 definitive stent thromboses at 6-month follow-up, no subacute or late stent thromboses were observed at longer follow-up in the PCI group.
The rate of antianginal medication was not different at 10-year follow-up (20% vs. 19%, p ⫽ 0.99). Use of additional cardiac medication was similar between the 2 treatment groups (Table 2). Table 2. Cardiovascular Medication at Long-Term Follow-Up Stenting (n ⴝ 81)
MIDCAB (n ⴝ 78)
p Value
Beta-blocker
60 (74)
59 (75)
0.85
ACE inhibitor/AT-1 antagonist
59 (73)
55 (71)
0.86
ANGINAL SYMPTOMS AND ANTIANGINAL MEDICATION.
Statin
55 (68)
53 (68)
0.99
After PCI, the median Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification score improved from 2 (IQR: 2 to 3) to 0 (IQR: 0 to 1) (p ⬍ 0.01) at 10-year follow-up, and 69% of the patients were completely free from angina. In the surgery group, the median angina class improved from 2 (IQR: 2 to 3) to 0 (IQR: 0 to 1) (p ⬍ 0.01 for the comparison with baseline), with 65% of patients free of anginal symptoms (p ⫽ 0.77 for the intergroup comparison).
Aspirin
60 (74)
54 (69)
0.59
8 (10)
7 (9)
0.99
Nitrates
16 (20)
15 (19)
0.99
Calcium antagonists
18 (22)
12 (15)
0.31
Antidiabetic medication
17 (21)
14 (18)
0.84
Thienopyridines
Values are n (%) per clinical event category. ACE ⫽ angiotensin-converting enzyme; AT-1 ⫽ angiotensin-1; MIDCAB ⫽ minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass.
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this prospective, randomized study is the first to compare long-term results at 10 years in patients with isolated lesions of the proximal LAD treated by either PCI with BMS or MIDCAB surgery. No significant differences in the composite endpoint and individual “hard” endpoints, such as death and myocardial infarction, could be found between both treatment groups. However, consistent with short- and midterm follow-up results, there was a significantly lower TVR rate in favor of the surgery group. In the time frame of the landmark analysis from 7 months to 10 years, no significant differences in the primary composite endpoint and secondary endpoints could be observed. Several clinical trials have demonstrated an initial higher complication rate in cardiac surgery due to perioperative risk, which at 6-month follow-up is offset by the stenting group due to the higher rate of TVR (7,8). At longer follow-up, the MACE rates align, which is reflected in Figure 2. Notably, the higher TVR rate in the stenting group was primarily driven during the first 6 months, as demonstrated in Figure 3. An important reason for the higher TVR rate in the PCI group might have been the use of BMS and the mandatory follow-up angiography at 6 months. Routine angiographic follow-up leads to additional revascularizations in comparison with sole clinical follow-up (12,13). Previous studies have shown restenosis rates up to 50% (7,8) in proximal LAD stenoses, and proximal LAD lesion location has been identified as a risk factor for restenosis after BMS implantation (14). Since the introduction of DES, restenosis rates have been dramatically reduced in comparison with BMS for all lesion subsets in short- (15) as well as midterm follow-up (6,16). Importantly, with DES, the proximal LAD lesion location is no longer an isolated risk factor for restenosis (5,17,18). Moreover, secondgeneration DES seem to reduce the risk of in-stent restenosis at any location even further in comparison with first-generation DES, with target lesion revascularization rates ranging from only 2.2% to 3.1% versus 4.6% to 5.5% (16,19). MACE rates might also be lower by using secondgeneration compared with first-generation DES (5% to 6% vs. 9%) (16,19) as well as mortality at 2-year follow-up (16). Thus, the use of DES might close the gap in repeat revascularization compared with MIDCAB for significant proximal LAD disease. Of note, in the present study, there was a high prevalence of type B2 and C lesions, which are well known for their higher in-stent restenosis rates in comparison with type A and B1 lesions (20,21). It should also be noted that the present study was performed with earlier generations of coronary artery stabilization devices for MIDCAB surgery and reflects early experience with this technique. We have previously demonstrated that a learning curve for MIDCAB surgery exists, with fewer complications occurring with increasing operator
25
experience (22). Therefore, TVR rates may be lower for both PCI and MIDCAB in a more contemporary setting. The effect of PCI with DES versus MIDCAB surgery in proximal LAD lesions has been evaluated in only 1 randomized clinical trial showing noninferiority of DES in comparison with MIDCAB surgery at 12-month follow-up (5). However, the value of each treatment option needs to be further clarified in future randomized trials with longer follow-up. The lack of a significant difference in mortality or myocardial infarction rates between PCI and surgery observed in the present study is in line with other trials in patients with isolated proximal LAD coronary artery lesions (23,24). Relief of angina was preserved at 10-year long-term follow-up. In the PCI group, 69% of the patients were free from angina, and in the MIDCAB group, 65% were also free of angina. Similar results have been published for proximal LAD lesions in other trials ranging from 61% to 94% for PCI and also for surgery (24 –26). Several studies have demonstrated the long-term patency of internal mammary arterial grafting and its superiority compared with vein grafts anastomosed to the LAD in terms of survival, freedom from infarction, angina, and repeated revascularization (22,27). There is evidence that the duration of benefit extends for ⬎10 years; therefore, long-term follow-up of revascularization trials is essential to further evaluate the magnitude of benefit over time (27,28). Study limitations. Some limitations of the present trial need attention. First, some events might have been missed due to 7 patients being lost to long-term 10-year follow-up. Also, results are from a single high-volume tertiary care center and may not be generalizable. Due to the trial design, blinding was not possible. Finally, both PCI and MIDCAB techniques have improved over time, and DES use is the current gold standard in patients undergoing PCI of the proximal LAD. Therefore, the results of this long-term analysis may not be applicable to current best practice.
Conclusions At the 10-year follow-up, stenting with BMS or MIDCAB for isolated proximal LAD lesions was associated with similar long-term outcomes regarding hard endpoints (death and infarction) and the combined composite endpoint at the cost of a higher TVR rate in the PCI group mainly within the first 6 months. Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Holger Thiele, Deputy Director, Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, University of Leipzig–Heart Center, Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].
26
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
REFERENCES
1. Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet 1994;344:563–70. 2. Klein LW, Weintraub WS, Agarwal JB, et al. Prognostic significance of severe narrowing of the proximal portion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Am J Cardiol 1986;58:42– 6. 3. O’Keefe JH, Kreamer TR, Jones PG, et al. Isolated left anterior descending coronary artery disease: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus stenting versus left internal mammary artery bypass grafting. Circulation 1999;100 Suppl 19:II114 – 8. 4. Diegeler A, Thiele H, Falk V, et al. Comparison of stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2002;347:561– 6. 5. Thiele H, Neumann-Schniedewind P, Jacobs S, et al. Randomized comparison of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery versus sirolimus-eluting stenting in isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2324 –31. 6. Kishi K, Kimura T, Morimoto T, et al., for the j-Cypher Registry Investigators. Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for ostial left anterior descending coronary artery lesions: three-year outcome from the j-Cypher Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:362–70. 7. Drenth DJ, Winter JB, Veeger NJ, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting in isolated high-grade stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery: six months’ angiographic and clinical follow-up of a prospective randomized study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002;124:130 –5. 8. Jaffery Z, Kowalski M, Weaver WD, Khanal S. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials comparing minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention for stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending artery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;31:691–7. 9. Thiele H, Oettel S, Jacobs S, et al. Comparison of bare-metal stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: a 5-year follow-up. Circulation 2005;112: 3445–50. 10. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD, et al., Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/ WHF task force for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:2173–95. 11. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al., for the Academic Research Consortium. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007;115:2344 –51. 12. Cutlip DE, Chauhan MS, Baim DS, et al. Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting: perspectives from multicenter clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:2082–9. 13. Uchida T, Popma J, Stone GW, et al. The clinical impact of routine angiographic follow-up in randomized trials of drug-eluting stents: a critical assessment of “oculostenotic” reintervention in patients with intermediate lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2010;3:403–11. 14. Kastrati A, Schömig A, Elezi S, et al. Predictive factors of restenosis after coronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1428 –36.
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
15. Tsagalou E, Stankovic G, Stancovic G, et al. Early outcome of treatment of ostial de novo left anterior descending coronary artery lesions with drug-eluting stents. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:187–91. 16. Sarno G, Lagerqvist B, Fröbert O, 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). Eur Heart J 2012;33:606 –13. 17. Sawhney N, Moses JW, Leon MB, et al. Treatment of left anterior descending coronary artery disease with sirolimus-eluting stents. Circulation 2004;110:374 –9. 18. Dangas G, Ellis SG, Shlofmitz R, et al., for the TAXUS-IV Investigators. Outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in patients with stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1186 –92. 19. Kedhi E, Joesoef KS, McFadden E, et al. Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial. Lancet 2010;375:201–9. 20. Zaacks SM, Allen JE, Calvin JE, et al. Value of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association stenosis morphology classification for coronary interventions in the late 1990s. Am J Cardiol 1998;82:43–9. 21. Kasaoka S, Tobis JM, Akiyama T, et al. Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound predictors of in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:1630 –5. 22. Holzhey DM, Jacobs S, Mochalski M, et al. Seven-year follow-up after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass: experience with more than 1300 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:108 –14. 23. Cisowski M, Drzewiecki J, Drzewiecka-Gerber A, et al. Primary stenting versus MIDCAB: preliminary report-comparison of two methods of revascularization in single left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:S1334 –9. 24. Drenth DJ, Veeger NJ, Grandjean JG, Mariani MA, van Boven AJ, Boonstra PW. Isolated high-grade lesion of the proximal LAD: a stent or off-pump LIMA? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:567–71. 25. Goy JJ, Kaufmann U, Hurni M, et al., for SIMA Investigators. 10-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing bare-metal stenting with internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis the SIMA (Stenting Versus Internal Mammary Artery Grafting) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:815–7. 26. Kim JW, Lim DS, Sun K, Shim WJ, Rho YM. Stenting or MIDCAB using ministernotomy for revascularization of proximal left anterior descending artery? Int J Cardiol 2005;99:437– 41. 27. Cameron A, Davis KB, Green G, Schaff HV. Coronary bypass surgery with internal-thoracic-artery grafts— effects on survival over a 15-year period. N Engl J Med 1996;334:216 –9. 28. Taggart DP, D’Amico R, Altman DG. Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet 2001;358:870 –5.
Key Words: bypass surgery 䡲 left anterior descending artery 䡲 long-term follow-up 䡲 percutaneous coronary intervention 䡲 stent.
VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 ISSN 1936-8798/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2012.09.008
Comparison of Bare-Metal Stenting With Minimally Invasive Bypass Surgery for Stenosis of the Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery 10-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial Stephan Blazek, MD,* David Holzhey, MD,† Camelia Jungert, BSC,* Michael A. Borger, MD, PHD,† Georg Fuernau, MD,* Steffen Desch, MD,* Ingo Eitel, MD,* Suzanne de Waha, MD,* Philipp Lurz, MD,* Gerhard Schuler, MD,* Friedrich-Wilhelm Mohr, MD,† Holger Thiele, MD* Leipzig, Germany Objectives The aim of this prospective, randomized trial was to assess the 10-year long-term safety and effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) for the treatment of proximal left anterior descending (LAD) lesions. Background Long-term follow-up data comparing PCI and MIDCAB surgery for isolated proximal LAD lesions are sparse. Methods Patients with significant isolated proximal LAD stenoses were randomized either to PCI with bare-metal stents (n ⫽ 110) or MIDCAB (n ⫽ 110). At 10 years, data were obtained with respect to the primary endpoint (death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization). Angina was assessed by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification. Results Follow-up was conducted for 212 patients at a median time of 10.3 years. There were no significant differences in the binary primary composite endpoint (47% vs. 36%; p ⫽ 0.12) and hard endpoints (death and infarction) between PCI and MIDCAB. However, a higher target vessel revascularization rate in the PCI group (34% vs. 11%; p ⬍ 0.01) was observed. Clinical symptoms improved significantly from baseline and were similar between both treatment groups. Conclusions At 10-year follow-up, PCI and MIDCAB in isolated proximal LAD lesions yielded similar long-term outcomes regarding the primary composite clinical endpoint. Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the PCI group. (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2013;6:20 – 6) © 2013 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
From the *Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiology, University of Leipzig, Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany; and the †Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Leipzig, Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Drs. Blazek and Holzhey contributed equally to this paper. Drs. Mohr and Thiele should be considered as shared senior authors. Manuscript received September 14, 2012; accepted September 27, 2012.
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
Previous trials have demonstrated that clinical prognosis in patients with untreated high-grade proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending (LAD) artery is poor due to the large territory of myocardium at risk (1,2). See page 27
Established treatment options are conventional bypass grafting, minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) either with bare-metal stents (BMS) or drugeluting stents (DES) (3– 6). In randomized trials (using BMS) and a meta-analysis comparing stenting versus MIDCAB, a significantly higher reintervention rate after PCI and similar results for mortality and myocardial infarction at 6-month follow-up have been demonstrated (4,7,8). At 5-year follow-up, these results were confirmed (9). To further elucidate advantages or disadvantages of PCI against MIDCAB in the long term, we report the 10-year follow-up of the largest randomized, prospective trial comparing MIDCAB surgery with PCI using BMS for treatment of patients with isolated lesions of the proximal LAD. Methods The detailed design of this trial has been described previously (4). In summary, patients with isolated high-grade lesions (ⱖ75% diameter stenosis on visual assessment, no total occlusion, no bifurcation lesion of the left main and the first diagonal branch) of the proximal LAD were included. A cardiac surgeon and a cardiologist had to find a consensus on patient eligibility. Balanced randomization was performed after written informed consent and patients were assigned to stenting or surgery. Exclusion criteria were acute coronary syndromes, additional significant coronary lesions, significant valvular heart disease, and previous interventional or surgical treatment for coronary artery disease. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. Stenting procedure. Stenting with BMS was performed according to standard practice (4). Patients received aspirin 100 mg/day indefinitely and ticlopidine or clopidogrel for 4 weeks (following a loading dose the day before the procedure). Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery.
MIDCAB surgery was performed through a left anterolateral minithoracotomy on the beating heart without cardiopulmonary bypass (4). The left internal thoracic artery was used as bypass graft. Aspirin (100 mg/day) treatment was recommended indefinitely. Follow-up. Data were collected by a structured patient interview at 5 years—results have been published previously (9)—and again 10 years after randomization. Reported clinical events were confirmed by contact with the general
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
21
practitioner, referring cardiologist, and/or the treating hospital. Death was defined as death from any cause. Death was regarded as cardiac in origin unless obvious noncardiac causes could be identified. In case of any doubt, death was counted as cardiac. For in-hospital periprocedural myocardial infarction, the previously chosen definition was used with increase of the creatine kinase-myocardial band (CKMB) value 3⫻ the normal value or if the ratio of CK-MB to total CK exceeded 0.1 (4). At follow-up, the standard universal definitions of myocardial infarction criteria were applied (10). Any new revascularization by either PCI or bypass grafting was further divided into target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and nontarget vessel revascularization categories. For stent thrombosis definition, the Academic Research Consortium criteria were applied (11). Abbreviations The initial study protocol at and Acronyms 6-month follow-up mandated a complete clinical work-up, inBMS ⴝ bare-metal stent(s) cluding symptom-limited exerCI ⴝ confidence interval cise stress test and coronary anCK-MB ⴝ creatine kinasegiography. For asymptomatic myocardial band patients, no further scheduled DES ⴝ drug-eluting stent(s) routine noninvasive or invasive HR ⴝ hazard ratio studies were performed at longIQR ⴝ interquartile range term follow-up. Repeated interLAD ⴝ left anterior ventions were clinically driven descending and performed in case of recurMACE ⴝ major adverse rence of angina and/or a positive cardiac events stress test. Quantitative angiogMIDCAB ⴝ minimally raphy was not performed in invasive direct coronary these patients, except for the artery bypass mandatory initial 6-month anPCI ⴝ percutaneous giography. The choice of all recoronary intervention current revascularization proceTVR ⴝ target vessel dures was left to the discretion of revascularization the investigator. All events were adjudicated by an event monitoring committee consisting of an experienced cardiologist and cardiovascular surgeon. Endpoints. The primary composite endpoint was freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction, and the need for repeated TVR. Secondary endpoints were each individual component of the primary endpoint. For the combined MACE rate, to avoid double counting of patients with more than 1 event, each patient contributed only once to the composite MACE endpoint and the first occurring event was counted regardless of severity. The clinical status was assessed by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society’s classification, and the need for antianginal drugs at 10-year follow-up was documented.
22
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
Results 220 patients randomized
BMS (n=110)
MIDCAB (n=110)
Coronary angiography at 6 months follow-up
Median follow-up time 10.3 years (IQR 9.4;11.4)
3 lost 10-year follow-up
5 lost 10-year follow-up
Figure 1. Trial Profile BMS ⫽ bare-metal stent(s); IQR ⫽ interquartile range; MIDCAB ⫽ minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery.
Statistical analysis. The initial sample size chosen to achieve 95% statistical power with a type I error of 5% by use of 2-sided Fisher exact test was based on the assumption that 30% of the patients treated by stenting with BMS and 9% treated by MIDCAB surgery would reach the combined primary endpoint. Accounting for losses to follow-up, 10 more patients in each group were included, resulting in 220 randomized patients. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients lost to follow-up were included in the analysis until their last known status. Continuous parameters were described as mean ⫾ SD or as median (interquartile range [IQR]) if not normally distributed. Categorical variables were expressed as number and percentage of patients. Differences between the treatment groups were assessed by Fisher exact test or the chi-square test for categorical variables with nominal scales. For continuous data with normal distribution, unpaired Student t test was used. Additionally, exploratory landmark analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method were performed for the primary composite endpoint, myocardial infarction, and TVR. The landmark was chosen at 7 months; therefore, the first analysis covers the period from 0 to 7 months and the second the period from 7 months to 10 years. The rationale for choosing the 7-month landmark was that it became evident that most TVR events in the PCI group occurred early during the first months of follow-up. Any patient with an event before the 7-month landmark was excluded from further analysis for the second period regarding the composite endpoint. For the TVR landmark analysis, those patients with prior TVR or death were excluded. The statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 17.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). A 2-tailed p value ⬍0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Between June 1997 and June 2001, 220 consecutive patients with isolated proximal LAD stenosis were randomized to either surgery (n ⫽ 110) or stenting (n ⫽ 110). Initially, 71% of patients had type B2 or C lesions and the percentage diameter stenosis was 82.8 ⫾ 7.8%. All patients received the assigned treatment. The 10-year long-term follow-up was completed for 212 patients (96%). Despite intensive effort, long-term follow-up information could not be obtained for 8 patients. For survival analysis, data until their last known status were used; median follow-up time was 10.3 years (IQR: 9.4 to 11.4 years) (Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the treatment groups and have been published previously (4). Primary composite endpoint. In the binary event analysis at 10 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of the combined primary endpoint in PCI versus MIDCAB (relative risk: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 1.05; p ⫽ 0.12) (Table 1). However, when a time-to-event analysis was used, the difference in event rates was statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.98; p ⫽ 0.04) (Fig. 2A). Landmark analysis showed that this difference was mainly driven by a higher event rate in the PCI group in the first months (period 0 to 7 months: HR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.57; p ⬍ 0.01) (Fig. 2B). In contrast, for the period from 7 months to 10 years, the difference between the event curves was no longer statistically significant (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.3; p ⫽ 0.40) (Fig. 2C). The binary incidence of each individual endpoint at 10-year follow-up is shown in Table 1. Secondary endpoints. REVASCULARIZATION. In the PCI group, the need for TVR was significantly higher compared with that of the MIDCAB group at 10 years (34% vs. 11%, p ⬍ 0.01) (Table 1). This was also true when a time-toevent method of analysis was used (Fig. 3A). Landmark analysis revealed that this difference was largely caused by a higher TVR rate in the first analysis Table 1. MACE at Long-Term Follow-Up (10 Years) Stenting MIDCAB Relative Risk (n ⴝ 107) (n ⴝ 105) p Value (95% CI) Death Cardiac death Myocardial infarction Target vessel revascularization
25 (23)
24 (23)
1.00
0.98 (0.51–1.35)
9 (8)
10 (10)
0.81
1.07 (0.65–1.75)
5 (5)
12 (11)
0.08
1.78 (0.84–3.76)
36 (34)
11 (11)
⬍0.001 0.56 (0.44–0.71)
Death or myocardial infarction
26 (24)
30 (29)
0.53
1.11 (0.83–1.54)
Any major adverse cardiac event
50 (47)
38 (36)
0.12
0.81 (0.62–1.05)
Values are n (%) per clinical event category. CI ⫽ confidence interval; MACE ⫽ major adverse cardiac events; MIDCAB ⫽ minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass.
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
A
B
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
0.8 Event free survival
Event free survival
0.8 0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
P<0.01; log-rank
P=0.04; log-rank
0.0
23
0.0 0
12
24 36 48 60 72 84 96 Months after randomization
108 120
0
0
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Number at risk (Months)
110
71
71
70
70
67
66
65
61
56
43
Stenting
110
96
93
90
85
84
80
79
76
71
55
MIDCAB
C
2 3 4 5 Months after randomization
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Number at risk (Months)
110
107
106
104
101
98
94
75
Stenting
110
103
102
102
100
99
99
99
MIDCAB
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
0.8 Event free survival
1
0.6
0.4 0.2 P=0.40; log-rank
0.0 12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Months after randomization
7
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Number at risk (Months)
76
72
71
69
67
63
61
59
55
50
37
Stenting
99
96
93
89
84
81
75
72
68
63
47
MIDCAB
Figure 2. Freedom From Combined Primary Study Endpoint Kaplan-Meier curve showing freedom from major adverse cardiac events during 10 years of follow-up (A), time frame 0 to 7 months (B), and 7 months to 10 years (C). The log-rank test was used to compare stenting and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB). The dotted black lines in B and C represent the 7-month landmark.
period from 0 to 7 months (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.47; p ⬍ 0.01) (Fig. 3B), whereas in the second period from 7 months to 10 years, the difference in event curves was no longer significant (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.23; p ⫽ 0.53) (Fig. 3C). Some patients had multiple TVRs. The mean number of TVR events per patient in the stenting group who had repeated revascularization was 1.37 ⫾ 0.69 (26 patients had 1, 8 had 2, 1 had 3, and 1 had 4 TVRs). Overall, in the interventional group, 49 TVRs were performed in 36 patients (30 [83%] PCIs, 4 [11%] surgical, 2 [6%] PCIs and surgical). In the surgical group, 8% required TVR at 6-month follow-up; additional revascularization was necessary in 1% at 5-year follow-up and increased by another 1% at longterm follow-up. The mean number of TVRs per patient in the MIDCAB group was 1.18 ⫾ 0.60. A total of 13 TVRs (9 [69%] PCIs and 4 [31%] surgical) were performed in 11 patients in the surgery group (10 patients had 1 and 1 patient had 3 TVRs).
Proximal LAD restenosis or bypass dysfunction with a necessity for target lesion revascularization occurred in 33 patients in the PCI group and 9 in the MIDCAB group (30% vs. 9%, p ⬍ 0.001). Nontarget vessel revascularization procedures at 10-year follow-up were necessary in 19 patients in the stenting group and 12 in the MIDCAB group (17% vs. 11%, p ⫽ 0.24), reflecting the progressive nature of coronary artery disease. DEATH AND MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION. All-cause mortality did not differ between the 2 treatment groups at 10-year follow-up (PCI 23% vs. MIDCAB 23%, p ⫽ 1.00) (Table 1). In addition, cardiac death rates were similar (Table 1). The cardiac deaths in the stenting group included 1 death from unknown cause, 2 infarctions, and 6 deaths due to congestive heart failure. The 10 cardiac deaths after surgery included 2 perioperative deaths and 1 death at follow-up from unknown cause. Three patients died of heart failure and 4 of acute myocardial infarction.
24
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
B
A
0
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
Event free survival
0.8
Stenting MIDCAB
8
6
0.6
4
0.4
2
0.2
P<0.01; log-rank
P<0.01; log-rank
0
0.0 0
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108 120
0
1
Months after randomization 0
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Number at risk (Months)
110
72
72
71
71
68
67
66
62
57
44
Stenting
110
99
96
93
89
87
83
82
78
74
57
MIDCAB
C
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Number at risk (Months)
110
107
106
105
102
99
95
76
Stenting
110
105
104
104
103
102
102
102
MIDCAB
1.0
Stenting MIDCAB
0.8 Event free survival
2
Months after randomization
0.6
0.4
0.2 P=0.53; log-rank
0.0 12
24
36 48 60 72 84 96 Months after randomization
108 120
7
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Number at risk (Months)
76
74
73
73
69
68
67
63
58
44
24
Stenting
98
93
90
86
85
81
80
78
74
57
25
MIDCAB
Figure 3. Freedom From TVR Kaplan-Meier curve showing freedom from target vessel revascularization (TVR) during 10 years of follow-up (A), time frame 0 to 7 months (B), and 7 months to 10 years (C). The log-rank test was used to compare stenting and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB). The dotted black lines in B and C represent the 7-month landmark.
The rate of myocardial infarctions was not statistically different between stenting and surgery at 10-year follow-up (5% vs. 11%, p ⫽ 0.08). Landmark analysis showed, despite the numerical higher event rates in the MIDCAB group, no statistically significant differences in the 0 to 7 months period (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.14 to 2.48; p ⫽ 0.49) or 7 months to 10 years period (HR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.39; p ⫽ 0.10). Except for 2 definitive stent thromboses at 6-month follow-up, no subacute or late stent thromboses were observed at longer follow-up in the PCI group.
The rate of antianginal medication was not different at 10-year follow-up (20% vs. 19%, p ⫽ 0.99). Use of additional cardiac medication was similar between the 2 treatment groups (Table 2). Table 2. Cardiovascular Medication at Long-Term Follow-Up Stenting (n ⴝ 81)
MIDCAB (n ⴝ 78)
p Value
Beta-blocker
60 (74)
59 (75)
0.85
ACE inhibitor/AT-1 antagonist
59 (73)
55 (71)
0.86
ANGINAL SYMPTOMS AND ANTIANGINAL MEDICATION.
Statin
55 (68)
53 (68)
0.99
After PCI, the median Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification score improved from 2 (IQR: 2 to 3) to 0 (IQR: 0 to 1) (p ⬍ 0.01) at 10-year follow-up, and 69% of the patients were completely free from angina. In the surgery group, the median angina class improved from 2 (IQR: 2 to 3) to 0 (IQR: 0 to 1) (p ⬍ 0.01 for the comparison with baseline), with 65% of patients free of anginal symptoms (p ⫽ 0.77 for the intergroup comparison).
Aspirin
60 (74)
54 (69)
0.59
8 (10)
7 (9)
0.99
Nitrates
16 (20)
15 (19)
0.99
Calcium antagonists
18 (22)
12 (15)
0.31
Antidiabetic medication
17 (21)
14 (18)
0.84
Thienopyridines
Values are n (%) per clinical event category. ACE ⫽ angiotensin-converting enzyme; AT-1 ⫽ angiotensin-1; MIDCAB ⫽ minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass.
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this prospective, randomized study is the first to compare long-term results at 10 years in patients with isolated lesions of the proximal LAD treated by either PCI with BMS or MIDCAB surgery. No significant differences in the composite endpoint and individual “hard” endpoints, such as death and myocardial infarction, could be found between both treatment groups. However, consistent with short- and midterm follow-up results, there was a significantly lower TVR rate in favor of the surgery group. In the time frame of the landmark analysis from 7 months to 10 years, no significant differences in the primary composite endpoint and secondary endpoints could be observed. Several clinical trials have demonstrated an initial higher complication rate in cardiac surgery due to perioperative risk, which at 6-month follow-up is offset by the stenting group due to the higher rate of TVR (7,8). At longer follow-up, the MACE rates align, which is reflected in Figure 2. Notably, the higher TVR rate in the stenting group was primarily driven during the first 6 months, as demonstrated in Figure 3. An important reason for the higher TVR rate in the PCI group might have been the use of BMS and the mandatory follow-up angiography at 6 months. Routine angiographic follow-up leads to additional revascularizations in comparison with sole clinical follow-up (12,13). Previous studies have shown restenosis rates up to 50% (7,8) in proximal LAD stenoses, and proximal LAD lesion location has been identified as a risk factor for restenosis after BMS implantation (14). Since the introduction of DES, restenosis rates have been dramatically reduced in comparison with BMS for all lesion subsets in short- (15) as well as midterm follow-up (6,16). Importantly, with DES, the proximal LAD lesion location is no longer an isolated risk factor for restenosis (5,17,18). Moreover, secondgeneration DES seem to reduce the risk of in-stent restenosis at any location even further in comparison with first-generation DES, with target lesion revascularization rates ranging from only 2.2% to 3.1% versus 4.6% to 5.5% (16,19). MACE rates might also be lower by using secondgeneration compared with first-generation DES (5% to 6% vs. 9%) (16,19) as well as mortality at 2-year follow-up (16). Thus, the use of DES might close the gap in repeat revascularization compared with MIDCAB for significant proximal LAD disease. Of note, in the present study, there was a high prevalence of type B2 and C lesions, which are well known for their higher in-stent restenosis rates in comparison with type A and B1 lesions (20,21). It should also be noted that the present study was performed with earlier generations of coronary artery stabilization devices for MIDCAB surgery and reflects early experience with this technique. We have previously demonstrated that a learning curve for MIDCAB surgery exists, with fewer complications occurring with increasing operator
25
experience (22). Therefore, TVR rates may be lower for both PCI and MIDCAB in a more contemporary setting. The effect of PCI with DES versus MIDCAB surgery in proximal LAD lesions has been evaluated in only 1 randomized clinical trial showing noninferiority of DES in comparison with MIDCAB surgery at 12-month follow-up (5). However, the value of each treatment option needs to be further clarified in future randomized trials with longer follow-up. The lack of a significant difference in mortality or myocardial infarction rates between PCI and surgery observed in the present study is in line with other trials in patients with isolated proximal LAD coronary artery lesions (23,24). Relief of angina was preserved at 10-year long-term follow-up. In the PCI group, 69% of the patients were free from angina, and in the MIDCAB group, 65% were also free of angina. Similar results have been published for proximal LAD lesions in other trials ranging from 61% to 94% for PCI and also for surgery (24 –26). Several studies have demonstrated the long-term patency of internal mammary arterial grafting and its superiority compared with vein grafts anastomosed to the LAD in terms of survival, freedom from infarction, angina, and repeated revascularization (22,27). There is evidence that the duration of benefit extends for ⬎10 years; therefore, long-term follow-up of revascularization trials is essential to further evaluate the magnitude of benefit over time (27,28). Study limitations. Some limitations of the present trial need attention. First, some events might have been missed due to 7 patients being lost to long-term 10-year follow-up. Also, results are from a single high-volume tertiary care center and may not be generalizable. Due to the trial design, blinding was not possible. Finally, both PCI and MIDCAB techniques have improved over time, and DES use is the current gold standard in patients undergoing PCI of the proximal LAD. Therefore, the results of this long-term analysis may not be applicable to current best practice.
Conclusions At the 10-year follow-up, stenting with BMS or MIDCAB for isolated proximal LAD lesions was associated with similar long-term outcomes regarding hard endpoints (death and infarction) and the combined composite endpoint at the cost of a higher TVR rate in the PCI group mainly within the first 6 months. Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Holger Thiele, Deputy Director, Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, University of Leipzig–Heart Center, Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].
26
Blazek et al. PCI Versus MIDCAB Surgery
REFERENCES
1. Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet 1994;344:563–70. 2. Klein LW, Weintraub WS, Agarwal JB, et al. Prognostic significance of severe narrowing of the proximal portion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Am J Cardiol 1986;58:42– 6. 3. O’Keefe JH, Kreamer TR, Jones PG, et al. Isolated left anterior descending coronary artery disease: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus stenting versus left internal mammary artery bypass grafting. Circulation 1999;100 Suppl 19:II114 – 8. 4. Diegeler A, Thiele H, Falk V, et al. Comparison of stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2002;347:561– 6. 5. Thiele H, Neumann-Schniedewind P, Jacobs S, et al. Randomized comparison of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery versus sirolimus-eluting stenting in isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2324 –31. 6. Kishi K, Kimura T, Morimoto T, et al., for the j-Cypher Registry Investigators. Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for ostial left anterior descending coronary artery lesions: three-year outcome from the j-Cypher Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:362–70. 7. Drenth DJ, Winter JB, Veeger NJ, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting in isolated high-grade stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery: six months’ angiographic and clinical follow-up of a prospective randomized study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002;124:130 –5. 8. Jaffery Z, Kowalski M, Weaver WD, Khanal S. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials comparing minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention for stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending artery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;31:691–7. 9. Thiele H, Oettel S, Jacobs S, et al. Comparison of bare-metal stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: a 5-year follow-up. Circulation 2005;112: 3445–50. 10. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD, et al., Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/ WHF task force for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:2173–95. 11. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al., for the Academic Research Consortium. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007;115:2344 –51. 12. Cutlip DE, Chauhan MS, Baim DS, et al. Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting: perspectives from multicenter clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:2082–9. 13. Uchida T, Popma J, Stone GW, et al. The clinical impact of routine angiographic follow-up in randomized trials of drug-eluting stents: a critical assessment of “oculostenotic” reintervention in patients with intermediate lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2010;3:403–11. 14. Kastrati A, Schömig A, Elezi S, et al. Predictive factors of restenosis after coronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1428 –36.
JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 2013 JANUARY 2013:20 – 6
15. Tsagalou E, Stankovic G, Stancovic G, et al. Early outcome of treatment of ostial de novo left anterior descending coronary artery lesions with drug-eluting stents. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:187–91. 16. Sarno G, Lagerqvist B, Fröbert O, 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). Eur Heart J 2012;33:606 –13. 17. Sawhney N, Moses JW, Leon MB, et al. Treatment of left anterior descending coronary artery disease with sirolimus-eluting stents. Circulation 2004;110:374 –9. 18. Dangas G, Ellis SG, Shlofmitz R, et al., for the TAXUS-IV Investigators. Outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in patients with stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1186 –92. 19. Kedhi E, Joesoef KS, McFadden E, et al. Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial. Lancet 2010;375:201–9. 20. Zaacks SM, Allen JE, Calvin JE, et al. Value of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association stenosis morphology classification for coronary interventions in the late 1990s. Am J Cardiol 1998;82:43–9. 21. Kasaoka S, Tobis JM, Akiyama T, et al. Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound predictors of in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:1630 –5. 22. Holzhey DM, Jacobs S, Mochalski M, et al. Seven-year follow-up after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass: experience with more than 1300 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:108 –14. 23. Cisowski M, Drzewiecki J, Drzewiecka-Gerber A, et al. Primary stenting versus MIDCAB: preliminary report-comparison of two methods of revascularization in single left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:S1334 –9. 24. Drenth DJ, Veeger NJ, Grandjean JG, Mariani MA, van Boven AJ, Boonstra PW. Isolated high-grade lesion of the proximal LAD: a stent or off-pump LIMA? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:567–71. 25. Goy JJ, Kaufmann U, Hurni M, et al., for SIMA Investigators. 10-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing bare-metal stenting with internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis the SIMA (Stenting Versus Internal Mammary Artery Grafting) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:815–7. 26. Kim JW, Lim DS, Sun K, Shim WJ, Rho YM. Stenting or MIDCAB using ministernotomy for revascularization of proximal left anterior descending artery? Int J Cardiol 2005;99:437– 41. 27. Cameron A, Davis KB, Green G, Schaff HV. Coronary bypass surgery with internal-thoracic-artery grafts— effects on survival over a 15-year period. N Engl J Med 1996;334:216 –9. 28. Taggart DP, D’Amico R, Altman DG. Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet 2001;358:870 –5.
Key Words: bypass surgery 䡲 left anterior descending artery 䡲 long-term follow-up 䡲 percutaneous coronary intervention 䡲 stent.