Background: The long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), particularly for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), remains controversial.Methods and Results:We retrospectively analyzed 2,827 patients (stable coronary artery disease [SCAD], n=1,601; NSTE-ACS, n=1,226) who underwent either PCI (n=1,732) or CABG (n=1,095). The 8-year composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI) was compared between PCI and CABG before and after propensity matching. For patients with NSTE-ACS, PCI was performed more frequently for those with higher Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score and 3-vessel disease, and PCI led to significantly higher 8-year composite of cardiac death and MI than CABG (14.1% vs. 5.9%, hazard ratio [HR]=2.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.37-3.58, P=0.001). There was a significant interaction between clinical presentation and revascularization strategy (P-interaction=0.001). However, after matching, the benefit of CABG vs. PCI was attenuated in patients with NSTE-ACS, whereas it was pronounced in those with SCAD. Interactions between clinical presentation and revascularization strategy were not observed (P-interaction=0.574).
Conclusions: Although the determinants of PCI vs. CABG in real-world clinical practice differ according to the clinical presentation, a significant interaction between clinical presentation and revascularization strategy was not noted for long-term outcomes. The revascularization strategy for patients with NSTE-ACS can be based on the criteria applied to patients with SCAD.
Keywords: Coronary artery bypass graft; Percutaneous coronary intervention.