Physiology or Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

While invasive coronary angiography is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) involving the epicardial coronary vessels, coronary physiology-guided revascularization represents a contemporary gold-standard practice for the invasive management of patients with intermediate CAD. Nevertheless, the long-term results of assessing the severity of stenosis through physiology compared to the angiogram as the guide to bypass surgery - coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical outcomes of a physiology guided CABG compared to the angiography-guided CABG. We sought to determine if outcomes differ between a physiology guided CABG compared to an angiography-guided CABG. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The last date for this search was June 2020, and all of the previous studies were included. We conducted a pooled risk-ratio meta-analysis for four main outcomes: all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). P-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test and quantified by the I2 index. We identified five studies that included a total of 1,114 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference between a physiology guided strategy and an angiography-guided strategy in MI (risk ratio [RR] = 0.72; 95%CI, 0.39-1.33; I2 = 0%; p = 0.65), TVR (RR = 1.25; 95%CI = 0.73-2.13; I2 = 0%; p = 0.52), or MACE (RR = 0.81; 95%CI = 0.62-1.07; I2 = 0%; p = 1). The physiology guided strategy has 0.63 times the risk of all-cause death compared to the angiography-guided strategy (RR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.42-0.96; I2 = 0%; p = 0.55). This meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in all-cause death when a physiology guided CABG strategy was used. Nevertheless, the short follow-up period, small sample size of the included studies and the non-discrimination of the causes of death can largely justify these conclusions. Studies with an extended follow-up period of observation are required to draw more robust and definitive conclusions. Enquanto a angiografia coronária invasiva é considerada padrão outro para o diagnóstico da doença arterial coronariana (DAC), envolvendo os vasos coronários epicárdicos, a revascularização coronariana guiada por fisiologia representa uma prática padrão ouro contemporânea para a administração invasiva de pacientes com DAC intermediária. Porém, os resultados de longo prazo da avaliação da gravidade da estenose por meio da fisiologia, em comparação à angiografia como guia para a cirurgia de bypass – enxerto de bypass de artéria coronária (CABG), ainda são incertos. Esta metanálise visa avaliar os resultados clínicos de um CABG guiado por fisiologia em comparação a um CABG guiado pela angiografia. Buscamos determinar se os resultados entre um CABG guiado por fisiologia e os de um CABG guiado por angiografia são diferentes entre si. Pesquisamos nas bases Medline, EMBASE e Cochrane Library. A última data de busca foi junho de 2020, e todos os estudos anteriores foram incluídos. Realizamos uma metanálise de razão de risco agrupado para quatro principais resultados: morte por todas as causas, infarto do miocárdio (IM), revascularização do vaso alvo (TVR) e eventos cardiovasculares adversos maiores (MACE). Valor de p <0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significante. A heterogeneidade foi avaliada com o teste Q de Cochran, e quantificada pelo índice I2. Identificamos cinco estudos incluindo um total de 1.114 pacientes. Uma metanálise agrupada não demonstrou diferenças significativas entre a estratégia da fisiologia e da angiografia para IM (razão de risco [RR] = 0,72; IC95%, 0,39–1,33; I2 = 0%; p = 0,65), TVR (RR = 1,25; IC95% = 0,73–2,13; I2 = 0%; p = 0,52), ou MACE (RR = 0,81; IC95% = 0,62–1,07; I2 = 0%; p = 1). A estratégia da fisiologia apresentou 0,63 vezes o risco de morte por todas as causas em comparação à estratégia da angiografia (RR = 0,63; IC95% = 0,42–0,96; I2 = 0%; p = 0,55). Esta metanálise demonstrou uma redução nas mortes por todas as causas quando usada a estratégia do CABG guiado por fisiologia. Porém, o curto período de acompanhamento, o tamanho da amostra pequeno dos estudos incluídos e a não-discriminação das causas de morte podem justificar essas conclusões. Estudos com períodos mais longos de acompanhamento são necessários para tirar conclusões mais robustas e definitivas. While invasive coronary angiography is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) involving the epicardial coronary vessels, coronary physiology-guided revascularization represents a contemporary gold-standard practice for the invasive management of patients with intermediate CAD. Nevertheless, the long-term results of assessing the severity of stenosis through physiology compared to the angiogram as the guide to bypass surgery – coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical outcomes of a physiology guided CABG compared to the angiography-guided CABG. We sought to determine if outcomes differ between a physiology guided CABG compared to an angiography-guided CABG. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The last date for this search was June 2020, and all of the previous studies were included. We conducted a pooled risk-ratio meta-analysis for four main outcomes: all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). P-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test and quantified by the I We identified five studies that included a total of 1,114 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference between a physiology guided strategy and an angiography-guided strategy in MI (risk ratio [RR] = 0.72; 95%CI, 0.39–1.33; I2 = 0%; p = 0.65), TVR (RR = 1.25; 95%CI = 0.73–2.13; I2 = 0%; p = 0.52), or MACE (RR = 0.81; 95%CI = 0.62–1.07; I2 = 0%; p = 1). The physiology guided strategy has 0.63 times the risk of all-cause death compared to the angiography-guided strategy (RR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.42–0.96; I2 = 0%; p = 0.55). This meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in all-cause death when a physiology guided CABG strategy was used. Nevertheless, the short follow-up period, small sample size of the included studies and the non-discrimination of the causes of death can largely justify these conclusions. Studies with an extended follow-up period of observation are required to draw more robust and definitive conclusions.

Similar article map