Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014 Aug 12;64(6):553-61.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.064.

Extent of coronary and myocardial disease and benefit from surgical revascularization in ischemic LV dysfunction [Corrected]

Julio A Panza  1 , Eric J Velazquez  2 , Lilin She  3 , Peter K Smith  4 , José C Nicolau  5 , Roberto R Favaloro  6 , Sinisa Gradinac  7 , Lukasz Chrzanowski  8 , Dorairaj Prabhakaran  9 , Jonathan G Howlett  10 , Marek Jasinski  11 , James A Hill  12 , Hanna Szwed  13 , Robert Larbalestier  14 , Patrice Desvigne-Nickens  15 , Robert H Jones  4 , Kerry L Lee  3 , Jean L Rouleau  16
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Extent of coronary and myocardial disease and benefit from surgical revascularization in ischemic LV dysfunction [Corrected]

Julio A Panza et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. .

Erratum in

  • J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Oct 7;64(14):1539

Abstract

Background: Patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction have higher operative risk with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). However, those whose early risk is surpassed by subsequent survival benefit have not been identified.

Objectives: This study sought to examine the impact of anatomic variables associated with poor prognosis on the effect of CABG in ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Methods: All 1,212 patients in the STICH (Surgical Treatment of IsChemic Heart failure) surgical revascularization trial were included. Patients had coronary artery disease (CAD) and ejection fraction (EF) of ≤35% and were randomized to receive CABG plus medical therapy or optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. This study focused on 3 prognostic factors: presence of 3-vessel CAD, EF below the median (27%), and end-systolic volume index (ESVI) above the median (79 ml/m(2)). Patients were categorized as having 0 to 1 or 2 to 3 of these factors.

Results: Patients with 2 to 3 prognostic factors (n = 636) had reduced mortality with CABG compared with those who received OMT (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56 to 0.89; p = 0.004); CABG had no such effect in patients with 0 to 1 factor (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.44; p = 0.591). There was a significant interaction between the number of factors and the effect of CABG on mortality (p = 0.022). Although 30-day risk with CABG was higher, a net beneficial effect of CABG relative to OMT was observed at >2 years in patients with 2 to 3 factors (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.75; p<0.001) but not in those with 0 to 1 factor (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.31; p = 0.535).

Conclusions: Patients with more advanced ischemic cardiomyopathy receive greater benefit from CABG. This supports the indication for surgical revascularization in patients with more extensive CAD and worse myocardial dysfunction and remodeling. (Comparison of Surgical and Medical Treatment for Congestive Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease [STICH]; NCT00023595).

Keywords: coronary artery disease; heart failure; left ventricular dysfunction; myocardial ischemia; outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time-varying hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in patients randomized to CABG or OMT in the STICH trial
OMT= optimal medical therapy; CABG= coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier estimates of all-cause (panel A) and cardiovascular (panel B) mortality rates
In each panel, study patients are divided according to the presence of 0–1 or 2–3 prognostic factors, regardless of treatment allocation.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier estimates of all-cause (panel A) and cardiovascular (panel B) mortality rates
In each panel, study patients are divided according to the presence of 0–1 or 2–3 prognostic factors, regardless of treatment allocation.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier rate estimates of all-cause mortality among patients with 2–3 (top panel) and 0–1 (bottom panel) prognostic factors
In each panel, study patients are divided according to the treatment arm (CABG or OMT) to which they were randomized.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Kaplan-Meier estimates of all-cause mortality rates among patients randomized to optimal medical therapy alone (OMT; top panel) or to coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG; bottom panel)
In each panel, study patients are divided according to the presence of 0–1 or 2–3 prognostic factors.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Kaplan-Meier estimates of all-cause mortality rates among patients randomized to optimal medical therapy alone (OMT; top panel) or to coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG; bottom panel)
In each panel, study patients are divided according to the presence of 0–1 or 2–3 prognostic factors.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Time-dependent hazard ratios of all-cause (top panel) and cardiovascular (bottom panel) mortality for CABG vs. OMT
Study patients are divided according to the presence of 2–3 (upper part of each panel) or 0–1 (lower part of each panel) prognostic factors.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Time-dependent hazard ratios of all-cause (top panel) and cardiovascular (bottom panel) mortality for CABG vs. OMT
Study patients are divided according to the presence of 2–3 (upper part of each panel) or 0–1 (lower part of each panel) prognostic factors.
CENTRAL ILLUSTRATION
CENTRAL ILLUSTRATION. Schematic Representation of the Clinical Implications of the Present Study Findings
*These thresholds are simply the medians of the LV function variables in the present study and have not been validated prospectively in an independent patient population. This algorithm should only be applied conceptually to support the notion that, among patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction, the benefit of surgical revascularization is greater when the disease process is more advanced (see text for more detail). CAD= coronary artery disease; EF= ejection fraction; ESVI= end-systolic volume index.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961–972. - PubMed
    1. Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2375–2384. - PubMed
    1. Herlitz J, Karlson BW, Sjoland H, et al. Long term prognosis after CABG in relation to preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction. Int J Cardiol. 2000;72:163–171. - PubMed
    1. Topkara VK, Cheema FH, Kesavaramanujam S, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with low ejection fraction. Circulation. 2005;112(suppl I):I344–I350. - PubMed
    1. Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Deja MA, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1607–1616. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data