Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in women with severe coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The optimal revascularization strategy for severe coronary artery disease (CAD) in women remains controversial. Despite differences between women and men in the development of CAD, there remains a paucity of comparative real-world observational evidence comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in women. Purpose We evaluated short and long-term outcomes of PCI and CABG in women with severe CAD. Methods We conducted a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study using linked clinical and administrative databases in Ontario, Canada to obtain records of women with left main, 3-vessel disease, or 2-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending artery involvement undergoing PCI or CABG from April 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2021. Patients who were >80 years of age and patients who underwent urgent or emergent procedures were excluded for the primary analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, and death (MACCE). Secondary outcomes included the individual components of MACCE and a composite of readmission for MI, heart failure, and stroke. Following multiple imputation and propensity score-matching, the Cox proportional hazards model and Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard model with robust variance estimators accounting for death as a competing risk were used to evaluate long-term outcomes. Results In the primary cohort, 2469 patients underwent PCI and 3,721 patients underwent CABG. After propensity score matching, including by coronary disease territory, 2,033 well-balanced pairs were identified, with standardized mean differences <0.10 for all covariates. In-hospital death and stroke were significantly lower with PCI than with CABG (0.7% vs 1.5%, p=0.036) and (<0.2% vs 1.4%, p<0.001), respectively, and there was no difference in perioperative MI between PCI and CABG (1.1% vs 0.6%, p=0.121). At a median (IQR) of 5.1 (2.9-7.5) years, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was higher with PCI compared with CABG (37.7% vs 23.3%, HR 1.79, [95% CI: 1.66-1.91], p<0.001) (Figure 1). All-cause mortality was higher with PCI compared with CABG (17.8% vs 13.4%, HR 1.33, [95% CI: 1.21-1.45], p<0.001) (Figure 2). The composite readmission outcome (MI, heart failure, stroke) was higher with PCI compared with CABG (16.2% vs 11.2%, HR 1.42, [95% CI: 1.37-1.48], p<0.001). Conclusion In women with severe CAD, CABG appears to be associated with a long-term reduction in MACCE and mortality compared with PCI. Our findings provide evidence to suggest women with severe CAD may derive greater long-term benefit from CABG compared to PCI and suggest that the treatment recommendation should shift towards CABG in appropriately selected women.Figure 1.MACCE free survivalFigure 2.Overall survival
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".