Advertisement

Coronary Revascularization in High-Risk Stable Patients With Significant Comorbidities: Challenges in Decision-Making

  • Joshua Schulman-MarcusEmail author
  • Kellsey Peterson
  • Riju Banerjee
  • Sanjay Samy
  • Neil Yager
Coronary Artery Disease (D Feldman and V Voudris, Section Editors)
  • 8 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract

Purpose of review

There is a growing cohort of complex high-risk patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) who present for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). These patients are older, have complex coronary disease, and a substantial comorbidity burden including frailty. The procedural risks and outcomes of CABG and PCI in these patients are more difficult to assess based on the available literature, which has generally studied a younger population with a lower comorbidity burden.

Recent findings

There have been initiatives to recalibrate and expand risk models derived from procedural registries to inform the care of complex higher-risk patients, including patients “turned down” for CABG. There is greater recognition of the need for improved assessment of risk, quality, and benefits of coronary revascularization in higher-risk SIHD patients with a substantial comorbidity burden.

Summary

Clinicians and patients should be aware that there are significant evidence gaps regarding revascularization in complex high-risk patients. The limitations of procedural-derived risk scores should be understood when presenting treatment options. Future randomized controlled trials and expanded registries are greatly desired and should be achievable. Meanwhile, a multidisciplinary heart team approach should be employed for proper decision-making.

Keywords

Coronary revascularization CABG PCI Risk estimation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Vora AN, Dai D, Gurm H, Amin AP, Messenger JC, Mahmud E, et al. Temporal trends in the risk profile of patients undergoing outpatient percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s CathPCI Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(3):e003070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Waldo SW, Gokhale M, O’Donnell CI, Plomondon ME, Valle JA, Armstrong EJ, et al. Temporal trends in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(9):879–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ElBardissi AW, Aranki SF, Sheng S, O’Brien SM, Greenberg CC, Gammie JS. Trends in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(2):273–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Agostino RS, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V, Fernandez FG, Paone G, Wormuth DW, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database: 2018 update on outcomes and quality. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(1):15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McNeely C, Markwell S, Vassileva C. Trends in patient characteristics and outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting in the 2000 to 2012 Medicare population. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102(1):132–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornwell LD, Omer S, Rosengart T, Holman WL, Bakaeen FG. Changes over time in risk profiles of patients who undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP). JAMA Surg. 2015;150(4):308–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;137(12):e67–e492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yeh RW, Mauri L, Wolf RE, Romm IK, Lovett A, Shahian D, et al. Population trends in rates of coronary revascularization. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(3):454–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, Fisher LD, Takaro T, Kennedy JW, 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(8922):563–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Dallas AP, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(24):e44–e164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel MR, Calhoon JH, Dehmer GJ, Grantham JA, Maddox TM, Maron DJ, et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(17):2212–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(15):1503–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sedlis SP, Hartigan PM, Teo KK, Maron DJ, Spertus JA, Mancini GB, et al. Effect of PCI on long-term survival in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(20):1937–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The BARI 2D Study Group. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(24):2503–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, Barbato E, Tonino PA, Piroth Z, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):991–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, Barbato E, Tonino P, Piroth Z, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(13):1208–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Jones RH, Al-Khalidi HR, Hill JA, Panza JA, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(16):1511–20 Trial demonstrating mortality advantage of revascularization in patients with systolic dysfunction.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maron DJ, Hochman JS, O'Brien SM, Reynolds HR, Boden WE, Stone GW, et al. International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial: rationale and design. Am Heart J. 2018;201:124–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, Siami FS, Dangas G, Mack M, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(25):2375–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, Simonton CA, Genereux P, Puskas J, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2223–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Makikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, Spence MS, Erglis A, Menown IB, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10061):2743–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P, Maron DJ, Zhang Z, Jurkovitz C, et al. Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(7):677–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bangalore S. Applicability of the COURAGE, BARI 2D, and FREEDOM trials to contemporary practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(10):996–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    •• Kirtane AJ, Doshi D, Leon MB, Lasala JM, Ohman EM, O'Neill WW, et al. Treatment of higher-risk patients with an indication for revascularization: evolution within the field of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2016;134(5):422–31 A position paper by leading interventional cardiologists calling for greater attention to complex high-risk patients who may need to undergo PCI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Farooq V, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, Meliga E, Vergouwe Y, Chieffo A, 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. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):639–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    •• Shahian DM, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V, Kurlansky PA, Furnary AP, Cleveland JC Jr, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 Adult Cardiac Surgery risk models: part 1-background, design considerations, and model development. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(5):1411–8 Methods paper describing the new STS risk calculator.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O'Brien SM, Feng L, He X, Xian Y, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 Adult Cardiac Surgery risk models: part 2-statistical methods and results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(5):1419–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Sheng S, Grover FL, Mayer JE, Jacobs JP, et al. Predictors of long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (the ASCERT study). Circulation. 2012;125(12):1491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peterson ED, Dai D, DeLong ER, Brennan JM, Singh M, Rao SV, et al. Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(18):1923–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hannan EL, Farrell LS, Walford G, Jacobs AK, Berger PB, Holmes DR Jr, et al. The New York State risk score for predicting in-hospital/30-day mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(6):614–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Doll JA, Dai D, Roe MT, Messenger JC, Sherwood MW, Prasad A, et al. Assessment of operator variability in risk-standardized mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the NCDR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(7):672–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McDaniel M. In-hospital risk-adjusted mortality poorly reflects PCI quality: so why is it being used? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(7):683–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    • Klein LW, Harjai KJ, Resnic F, Weintraub WS, Vernon Anderson H, Yeh RW, et al. 2016 Revision of the SCAI position statement on public reporting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;89(2):269–79 A position paper regarding public reporting in PCI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Klein LW, Maroney J. Risk-adjusted models of 30-day mortality following coronary intervention: how can they be made more clinically relevant? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(6):623–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rao SV, McCoy LA, Spertus JA, Krone RJ, Singh M, Fitzgerald S, et al. An updated bleeding model to predict the risk of post-procedure bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report using an expanded bleeding definition from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(9):897–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tsai TT, Patel UD, Chang TI, Kennedy KF, Masoudi FA, Matheny ME, et al. Validated contemporary risk model of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Cath-PCI Registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3(6):e001380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wasfy JH, Borden WB, Secemsky EA, McCabe JM, Yeh RW. Public reporting in cardiovascular medicine: accountability, unintended consequences, and promise for improvement. Circulation. 2015;131(17):1518–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Garratt KN. Challenges and importance of finding hidden confounders when conducting comparative effectiveness studies using registry data: the impact of surgical turn-down on percutaneous coronary intervention mortality. Circulation. 2014;130(25):2269–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Waldo SW, Secemsky EA, O'Brien C, Kennedy KF, Pomerantsev E, Sundt TM 3rd, et al. Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2014;130(25):2295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    •• Messenger JC, Mousa ID, Masoudi FA. Upcoming changes and rationale in the NCDR CathPCI data requirements 2017 [cited 2018 November 13]. Available from: https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2017/01/20/09/36/upcoming-changes-and-rationale-in-the-ncdr-cathpci-data-requirements. Important updates to the NCDR CathPCI database that should improve risk estimation for higher-risk patients.
  42. 42.
    • Sawant AC, Josey K, Plomondon ME, Maddox TM, Bhardwaj A, Singh V, et al. Temporal trends, complications, and predictors of outcomes among nonagenarians undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(13):1295–303 Important trends regarding PCI outcomes in nonagenarians.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Afilalo J, Mottillo S, Eisenberg MJ, Alexander KP, Noiseux N, Perrault LP, et al. Addition of frailty and disability to cardiac surgery risk scores identifies elderly patients at high risk of mortality or major morbidity. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(2):222–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1597–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua Schulman-Marcus
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kellsey Peterson
    • 2
  • Riju Banerjee
    • 1
  • Sanjay Samy
    • 3
  • Neil Yager
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of CardiologyAlbany Medical CenterAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Division of MedicineAlbany Medical CenterAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Division of Cardiothoracic SurgeryAlbany Medical CenterAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations