Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel coronary artery disease in the bare-metal stent era.

Abstract

Observational registries comparing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported long-term survival results that are discordant with those of randomized trials. We conducted a multicenter study in Japan enrolling consecutive patients undergoing first CABG or PCI between January 2000 and December 2002. Among 9877 patients enrolled, 5420 (PCI: 3712, CABG: 1708) had multivessel disease without left main involvement. Because age is an important determinant when choosing revascularization strategies, survival analysis was stratified by either age >/=75 or <75 years. Analyses were also performed in other relevant subgroups. Median follow-up interval was 1284 days with 95% follow-up rate at 2 years. At 3 years, unadjusted survival rates were 91.7% and 89.6% in the CABG and PCI groups, respectively (log rank P=0.26). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, survival outcome tended to be better after CABG (hazard ratio for death after PCI versus CABG [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23 [0.99-1.53], P=0.06). Adjusted survival outcomes also tended to be better for CABG among elderly patients (HR [95%CI]: 1.37 [0.98-1.92] P=0.07), but not among nonelderly patients (HR [95% CI]: 1.09 [0.82-1.46], P=0.55). Unadjusted and adjusted survival outcome for CABG and PCI were not significantly different in any subgroups when elderly patients were excluded from analysis. In the CREDO-Kyoto registry, survival outcomes among patients <75 years of age were similar after PCI and CABG, a result that is consistent with those of randomized trials.