OBJECTIVES: Ischaemic heart disease is a major risk factor for heart failure. However, long-term benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in those patients has not been well elucidated.
METHODS: Of the 15 939 patients undergoing first myocardial revascularization enrolled in the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2, we identified 1064 patients with multivessel and/or left main disease with a history of heart failure (ACC/AHA Stage C or D).
RESULTS: There were 672 patients undergoing PCI and 392 CABG. Preprocedural left ventricular ejection fraction was not different between PCI and CABG (46.6 +/- 15.1 vs 46.6 +/- 14.6%, P = 0.89), but the CABG group included more patients with triple-vessel and left main disease (P <0.01 each). Three-year outcomes revealed that the risk of hospital readmission for heart failure was higher after PCI than after CABG (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]; 1.90 [1.18-3.05], P = 0.01). More importantly, adjusted mortality after PCI was significantly higher than after CABG (1.79 [1.13-2.82], P = 0.01). The risk of cardiac death after PCI was also higher than after CABG (1.98 [1.10-3.55], P = 0.02). Stratified analysis using the SYNTAX score demonstrated that risk of death was not different between PCI and CABG in patients with low (< 23) and intermediate (23-32) SYNTAX scores (2.10 [0.57-7.68], P = 0.26 and 1.43 [0.63-3.21], P = 0.39, respectively), whereas those with a high (= 33) SYNTAX score, the risk of death was far higher after PCI than after CABG (4.83 [1.46-16.0], P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with advanced coronary artery disease, CABG was a better option than PCI because CABG was associated with better survival benefit, particularly in more complex coronary lesions stratified by the SYNTAX score.