open access

Vol 76, No 6 (2018)
Original articles
Published online: 2018-01-26
Submitted: 2017-11-08
Accepted: 2018-01-26
Get Citation

Impact of previous percutaneous coronary interventions on the course and clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting

Paweł Bugajski, Krzysztof Greberski, Michał Kuzemczak, Ryszard Kalawski, Radosław Jarząbek, Tomasz Siminiak
DOI: 10.5603/KP.a2018.0039
·
Kardiol Pol 2018;76(6):953-959.

open access

Vol 76, No 6 (2018)
Original articles
Published online: 2018-01-26
Submitted: 2017-11-08
Accepted: 2018-01-26

Abstract

Background: Despite the increasing number of patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), studies on the impact of these procedures on surgical revascularisation outcomes are sparse. Furthermore, advances in cardiology require reassessment of their potential prognostic significance.

Aim: We sought to assess the influence of previous PCI on CABG outcomes.

Methods: A total of 211 consecutive patients scheduled for CABG were enrolled into this prospective study. Patients after PCI (group 1, n = 99) were compared with subjects with no history of PCI (group 2, n = 112) in terms of preoperative, operative, and postoperative data. All the patients were followed-up for the incidence of in-hospital (cardiogenic shock, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute renal failure, reoperation, death) and long-term (overall mortality, occlusion of at least one graft in 64-row computed tomography) clinical endpoints.

Results: Group 1 had more advanced heart failure and coronary artery disease as reflected by New York Heart Association (2.43 ± 0.57 vs. 2.17 ± 0.68; p < 0.001) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (2.44 ± 0.59 vs. 2.03 ± 0.65; p < 0.001) scales, respectively. Compared with group 2, longer aortic cross-clamp (33.5 ± 9.9 vs. 29.5 ± 8.4; p < 0.05) and cardiopul­monary bypass (67.5 ± 28.2 vs. 56.5 ± 17.9; p < 0.001) times were observed as well as a higher number of implanted grafts (3.0 ± 0.7 vs. 2.8 ± 0.70; p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in terms of in-hospital clinical endpoints. During 12 ± 3.41 months of follow-up group 1 had higher mortality (5.05% vs. 0%; p < 0.05) but similar graft patency.

Conclusions: “Stent-loaded” patients undergo more time-consuming CABG with a higher number of grafts. Furthermore, they have higher long-term mortality but similar graft patency and in-hospital mortality/morbidity.

Abstract

Background: Despite the increasing number of patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), studies on the impact of these procedures on surgical revascularisation outcomes are sparse. Furthermore, advances in cardiology require reassessment of their potential prognostic significance.

Aim: We sought to assess the influence of previous PCI on CABG outcomes.

Methods: A total of 211 consecutive patients scheduled for CABG were enrolled into this prospective study. Patients after PCI (group 1, n = 99) were compared with subjects with no history of PCI (group 2, n = 112) in terms of preoperative, operative, and postoperative data. All the patients were followed-up for the incidence of in-hospital (cardiogenic shock, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute renal failure, reoperation, death) and long-term (overall mortality, occlusion of at least one graft in 64-row computed tomography) clinical endpoints.

Results: Group 1 had more advanced heart failure and coronary artery disease as reflected by New York Heart Association (2.43 ± 0.57 vs. 2.17 ± 0.68; p < 0.001) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (2.44 ± 0.59 vs. 2.03 ± 0.65; p < 0.001) scales, respectively. Compared with group 2, longer aortic cross-clamp (33.5 ± 9.9 vs. 29.5 ± 8.4; p < 0.05) and cardiopul­monary bypass (67.5 ± 28.2 vs. 56.5 ± 17.9; p < 0.001) times were observed as well as a higher number of implanted grafts (3.0 ± 0.7 vs. 2.8 ± 0.70; p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in terms of in-hospital clinical endpoints. During 12 ± 3.41 months of follow-up group 1 had higher mortality (5.05% vs. 0%; p < 0.05) but similar graft patency.

Conclusions: “Stent-loaded” patients undergo more time-consuming CABG with a higher number of grafts. Furthermore, they have higher long-term mortality but similar graft patency and in-hospital mortality/morbidity.

Get Citation

Keywords

myocardial revascularisation, graft patency, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting

About this article
Title

Impact of previous percutaneous coronary interventions on the course and clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting

Journal

Kardiologia Polska (Polish Heart Journal)

Issue

Vol 76, No 6 (2018)

Pages

953-959

Published online

2018-01-26

DOI

10.5603/KP.a2018.0039

Bibliographic record

Kardiol Pol 2018;76(6):953-959.

Keywords

myocardial revascularisation
graft patency
percutaneous coronary intervention
coronary artery bypass grafting

Authors

Paweł Bugajski
Krzysztof Greberski
Michał Kuzemczak
Ryszard Kalawski
Radosław Jarząbek
Tomasz Siminiak

References (21)
  1. Kolh P, Windecker S, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS 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 of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 46(4): 571–592.
  2. Serruys PW, Ong ATL, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46(4): 575–581.
  3. Arjomand H, Willerson JT, Holmes DR, et al. PRESTO Investigators. Outcome of patients with prior percutaneous revascularization undergoing repeat coronary intervention (from the PRESTO Trial). Am J Cardiol. 2005; 96(6): 741–746.
  4. Vicenzi MN, Meislitzer T, Heitzinger B, et al. Coronary artery stenting and non-cardiac surgery--a prospective outcome study. Br J Anaesth. 2006; 96(6): 686–693.
  5. Thielmann M, Neuhäuser M, Knipp S, et al. Prognostic impact of previous percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes mellitus and triple-vessel disease undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 134(2): 470–476.
  6. Bonaros N, Hennerbichler D, Friedrich G, et al. Increased mortality and perioperative complications in patients with previous elective percutaneous coronary interventions undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 137(4): 846–852.
  7. Lisboa LA, Mejia OA, Dallan LA, et al. Previous percutaneous coronary intervention as risk factor for coronary artery bypass grafting. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2012; 99(1): 586–595.
  8. Hassan A, Buth KJ, Baskett RJF, et al. The association between prior percutaneous coronary intervention and short-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am Heart J. 2005; 150(5): 1026–1031.
  9. Zhang L, Gao Cq, Li Bj, et al. [Impact of prior percutaneous coronary intervention on outcome of coronary artery bypass graft surgery]. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2012; 41(2): 196–9, 209.
  10. Yap CH, Yan BP, Akowuah E, et al. Does prior percutaneous coronary intervention adversely affect early and mid-term survival after coronary artery surgery? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2(8): 758–764.
  11. Thielmann M, Leyh R, Massoudy P, et al. Prognostic significance of multiple previous percutaneous coronary interventions in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 2006; 114(1 Suppl): I441–I447.
  12. Massoudy P, Thielmann M, Lehmann N, et al. Impact of prior percutaneous coronary intervention on the outcome of coronary artery bypass surgery: a multicenter analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 137(4): 840–845.
  13. Maas AH, Appelman YEA. Gender differences in coronary heart disease. Neth Heart J. 2010; 18(12): 598–602.
  14. Tekumit H, Uzun K, Cenal AR, et al. Determinants of mortality in patients requiring prolonged intensive care unit stay after elective isolated on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Kardiol Pol. 2010; 68(3): 257–262.
  15. Harper JM, Shah Y, Kern MJ, et al. Progression of left main coronary artery stenosis following left anterior descending coronary artery angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1987; 13(6): 398–400.
  16. Castillo-Sang M, Anastacio MM, Guthrie TJ, et al. Left main disease progression following left branch vessel percutaneous intervention in patients who are referred for coronary artery bypass grafting. J Card Surg. 2015; 30(1): 35–40.
  17. Bonaros N, Vill D, Wiedemann D, et al. Major risk stratification models do not predict perioperative outcome after coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with previous percutaneous intervention. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011; 39(6): e164–e169.
  18. Mehta GS, LaPar DJ, Bhamidipati CM, et al. Previous percutaneous coronary intervention increases morbidity after coronary artery bypass grafting. Surgery. 2012; 152(1): 5–11.
  19. Biglioli P, Cannata A, Alamanni F, et al. Biological effects of off-pump vs. on-pump coronary artery surgery: focus on inflammation, hemostasis and oxidative stress. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003; 24(2): 260–269.
  20. Nauffal V, Schwann TA, Yammine MB, et al. Impact of prior intracoronary stenting on late outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in diabetics with triple-vessel disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 149(5): 1302–1309.
  21. Fukui T, Tanaka S, Takanashi S. Previous coronary stents do not increase early and long-term adverse outcomes in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a propensity-matched comparison. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148(5): 1843–1849.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., Świętokrzyska 73 street, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl