Comparative Clinical Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Coronary Disease
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i7.1948Keywords:
Post-operative complications, quality of life, CABG, PCI, recovery time, cardiac surgery, correlation, chi-square, ANOVA, patient outcomesAbstract
This study was to examine how post- surgical complications affect quality of life of patients who have undergone either Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) surgery as well as Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) surgery. A quantitative research design was used and 300 cardiac patients had been sampled, 150 patients per group (CABG and PCI). Purposive sampling method was also used where relevant participants were involved. The analyses of the data were carried out by Pearson correlation, ANOVA, and chi-square procedures with the help of SPSS software. The correlation analysis revealed significant moderate negative association between post-operative complication and quality of life in the complete sample (r = -0.463, p < 0.01). This implies that, the more the complications, the poorer the quality of life of patients. The CABG group had a stronger negative correlation when tackled independently (r = -0.492) than the PCI group (r = -0.421), meaning that the CABG patients were yet more affected by complications on their quality of life. ANOVA indicated the limitation of a significant difference between the two groups in recovery time (F = 9.76, p < 0.01), with PCI patients taking shorter time to recover. Chi-square test also demonstrated a significant relationship between the nature of the surgery and the presence of the complications (2 = 11.420, p = 0.001). These results pinpoint that the kind of surgical intervention one is subjected to does not just affect the length of time taken to recuperate but also affect post-surgery results and the general well-being of the patient. The findings can assist medical professionals in managing patients to better care and reducing the instances of complications particularly among the patients with high risk cases.
Downloads
References
1. Zhai, C., et al., Clinical outcome comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass surgery in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2019. 11(1): p. 110.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-019-0506-y
2. Shaik, T.A., et al., Comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Cureus, 2022. 14(9).
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29505
3. Palmerini, T., et al., Clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary revascularization vs coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 6 randomized trials and 4,686 patients. American heart journal, 2017. 190: p. 54-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2017.05.005
4. Fatima, K., et al., Comparison of the postprocedural quality of life between coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review. Cardiology Research and Practice, 2016. 2016(1): p. 7842514.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7842514
5. Gaudino, M., et al., Overall and cause-specific mortality in randomized clinical trials comparing percutaneous interventions with coronary bypass surgery: a meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2020. 180(12): p. 1638-1646.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4748
6. Baber, U., et al., Comparative efficacy of coronary artery bypass surgery vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease with or without chronic kidney disease. European heart journal, 2016. 37(46): p. 3440-3447.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw378
7. Chan, W., et al., Clinical outcomes of treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing index revascularization in Ontario. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2015. 8(1): p. e001973.
https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.114.001973
8. Shiomi, H., et al., Comparison of five-year outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in triple-vessel coronary artery disease (from the Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2). The American journal of cardiology, 2015. 116(1): p. 59-65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.03.040
9. Rathod, K.S., et al., Prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery and outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention: an observational study from the Pan‐London Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry. Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. 9(12): p. e014409.
https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.119.014409
10. Gallo, M., et al., Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2022. 163(1): p. 94-105. e15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.04.010
11. Smit, Y., et al., Percutaneous coronary invervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2015. 149(3): p. 831-838. e13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.10.112
12. Brilakis, E.S., et al., Percutaneous coronary intervention in native coronary arteries versus bypass grafts in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: insights from the veterans affairs clinical assessment, reporting, and tracking program. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2016. 9(9): p. 884-893.
13. Khan, M.F., et al., Comparison of procedural complications and in‐hospital clinical outcomes between patients with successful and failed percutaneous intervention of coronary chronic total occlusions: A Meta‐Analysis of Observational Studies. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2015. 85(5): p. 781-794.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25712
14. Patel, T.M., et al., Comparison of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional percutaneous coronary intervention: A propensity score–matched analysis of a large cohort. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2020. 13(5): p. e008888.
15. Deppe, A.-C., et al., Minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention for single-vessel disease: a meta-analysis of 2885 patients. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 2015. 47(3): p. 397-406.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu285
16. Harskamp, R.E., et al., Comparative effectiveness of hybrid coronary revascularization vs coronary artery bypass grafting. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2015. 221(2): p. 326-334. e1.
17. Milojevic, M., et al., The impact of chronic kidney disease on outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with complex coronary artery disease: five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. EuroIntervention, 2018. 14(1): p. 102-11.
https://doi.org/10.4244/eij-d-17-00620
18. Ahmad, Y., et al., Mortality after drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Heart Journal, 2020. 41(34): p. 3228-3235.
19. Stone, G.W., et al., Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2019. 381(19): p. 1820-1830.
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1909406
20. Gershlick, A.H., et al., Outcomes after left main percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting according to lesion site: results from the EXCEL trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2018. 11(13): p. 1224-1233.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.03.040
21. Shavadia, J., et al., Symptomatic graft failure and impact on clinical outcome after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: results from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease registry. American heart journal, 2015. 169(6): p. 833-840.
22. Nicolini, F., et al., The impact of age on clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting: long‐term results of a real‐world registry. BioMed research international, 2017. 2017(1): p. 9829487.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9829487
23. Laukkanen, J.A., et al., All-cause mortality and major cardiovascular outcomes comparing percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: a meta-analysis of short-term and long-term randomised trials. 2017, British Cardiovascular Society.
24. Meraj, P.M., et al., Clinical outcomes of atherectomy prior to percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of outcomes following rotational versus orbital atherectomy (COAP‐PCI study). Journal of Interventional Cardiology, 2018. 31(4): p. 478-485.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joic.12511
25. Blazek, S., et al., Comparison of sirolimus-eluting stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: 7-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2015. 8(1 Part A): p. 30-38.
26. Ben-Yehuda, O., et al., Impact of large periprocedural myocardial infarction on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting for left main disease: an analysis from the EXCEL trial. European Heart Journal, 2019. 40(24): p. 1930-1941.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz113
27. Acharjee, S., et al., Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention in women with stable coronary disease: A pre-specified subset analysis of the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive druG Evaluation (COURAGE) trial. American Heart Journal, 2016. 173: p. 108-117.
28. Yang, J.H., et al., Optimal Medical Therapy vs. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion–A Propensity-Matched Analysis–. Circulation Journal, 2015. 80(1): p. 211-217.
https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.cj-15-0673
29. Toner, L., et al., Acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the COVID-19 era: comparable case volumes but delayed symptom onset to hospital presentation. European Heart Journal-Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes, 2020. 6(3): p. 225-226.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcaa038
30. Holm, N.R., et al., Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial. The Lancet, 2020. 395(10219): p. 191-199.
31. Kubo, T., et al., Optical frequency domain imaging vs. intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention (OPINION trial): one-year angiographic and clinical results. European Heart Journal, 2017. 38(42): p. 3139-3147.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx351
32. Tajstra, M., et al., Hybrid coronary revascularization in selected patients with multivessel disease: 5-year clinical outcomes of the prospective randomized pilot study. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2018. 11(9): p. 847-852.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.271
33. Windecker, S., et al., Considerations for the choice between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention as revascularization strategies in major categories of patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease: an accompanying article of the task force of the 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European heart journal, 2019. 40(2): p. 204-212.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy532
34. Munnee, K., et al., Comparing the clinical outcomes between insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine, 2016. 95(10): p. e3006.
https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000003006
35. Rogowski, S., et al., Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: angiographic follow‐up and long‐term clinical outcome in a predominantly medically treated population. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2017. 89(1): p. 59-68.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26383
36. Escaned, J., et al., Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three vessel disease: 1-year results of the SYNTAX II study. European heart journal, 2017. 38(42): p. 3124-3134.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx512
37. Serruys, P.W., et al., Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularisation in patients with three-vessel disease: two-year follow-up of the SYNTAX II study. EuroIntervention, 2019. 15(3): p. e244-52.
https://doi.org/10.4244/eij-d-18-00980
38. Kim, Y.H., et al., Impact of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with successful percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents: Comparison between STEMI and NSTEMI. Atherosclerosis, 2019. 280: p. 166-173.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
