Background: Prompt revascularization is often required in acute coronary syndromes (ACS), whereas stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) may allow for more measured procedural planning. Whether the acuity of presentation preferentially affects outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is unknown. We investigated whether the acuity of presentation discriminated patients who derived a differential benefit from PCI versus CABG in the randomized Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial. Methods: We used multivariable Cox models to assess the interaction between the acuity of presentation, type of revascularization and outcomes in patients with low or intermediate SYNTAX scores enrolled in EXCEL. Results: At baseline, 1151 patients (60.7%) presented with SIHD and 746 patients (39.3%) presented with an ACS. The acuity of presentation was not associated with the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke at 3 years (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; 95% CI 0.70–1.26, P = .64). The primary endpoint rate was similar in patients assigned to PCI versus CABG whether they presented with SIHD (adjusted HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.73–1.48]) or with ACS (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.54–1.26) (Pinteraction = .34). Conclusions: The acuity of presentation did not predict outcomes in patients with LMCAD undergoing revascularization, nor did it discriminate patients who derive greater event-free survival from PCI versus CABG.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine