Comparison of coronary revascularization procedures in octogenarians: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Stephen H. McKellar, Morgan L. Brown, Robert L. Frye, Hartzell V Schaff, Thoralf M. Sundt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

80 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Elderly patients are the fastest growing population in the US healthcare system and more patients aged 80 years and older require CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary revascularization than ever before. Because octogenarian patients have not been adequately represented in randomized trials comparing CABG and PCI, the most appropriate method of revascularization for this group of patients has not been determined. Methods: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of 66 studies of coronary revascularization in patients aged over 80 years. The primary endpoints included 30 day mortality and long-term survival. Subgroup analyses stratified by revascularization type (PCI versus CABG) were also performed. Results: Pooled estimate of 30 day mortality was 6.3% (95% CI 5.3%-7.5%), and for survival at 1, 3 and 5 years, 86% (84%-88%), 78% (74%-81%) and 67% (61%-72%), respectively. A greater number of men (P <0.001) and patients with multivessel disease (P = 0.004) were treated with CABG than with PCI. Pooled estimates, based on type of revascularization, of 30 day mortality and 1 year survival were similar (7.3% [6.3%-8.2%] for CABG vs 5.4% [4.4%-6.4%] for PCI and 86% [83%-88%] for CABG vs 87% [84%-91%] for PCI, respectively). Conclusions: Available data indicate that revascularization can be performed in octogenarians with acceptable short-term and long-term outcomes; most of the evidence is, however, low level. Furthermore, it is unclear whether octogenarians derive greater survival benefit from CABG or from PCI because preprocedural risk profiles differ between intervention types. Periprocedural and long-term outcomes are, however, equivalent, and randomized, controlled trials of high-risk octogenarians are needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)738-746
Number of pages9
JournalNature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine
Volume5
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Meta-Analysis
Survival
Mortality
Randomized Controlled Trials
Delivery of Health Care
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of coronary revascularization procedures in octogenarians : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / McKellar, Stephen H.; Brown, Morgan L.; Frye, Robert L.; Schaff, Hartzell V; Sundt, Thoralf M.

In: Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 11, 2008, p. 738-746.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McKellar, Stephen H. ; Brown, Morgan L. ; Frye, Robert L. ; Schaff, Hartzell V ; Sundt, Thoralf M. / Comparison of coronary revascularization procedures in octogenarians : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine. 2008 ; Vol. 5, No. 11. pp. 738-746.
@article{d6a8d3d1fbb1449997d14d6507e09ada,
title = "Comparison of coronary revascularization procedures in octogenarians: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background: Elderly patients are the fastest growing population in the US healthcare system and more patients aged 80 years and older require CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary revascularization than ever before. Because octogenarian patients have not been adequately represented in randomized trials comparing CABG and PCI, the most appropriate method of revascularization for this group of patients has not been determined. Methods: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of 66 studies of coronary revascularization in patients aged over 80 years. The primary endpoints included 30 day mortality and long-term survival. Subgroup analyses stratified by revascularization type (PCI versus CABG) were also performed. Results: Pooled estimate of 30 day mortality was 6.3{\%} (95{\%} CI 5.3{\%}-7.5{\%}), and for survival at 1, 3 and 5 years, 86{\%} (84{\%}-88{\%}), 78{\%} (74{\%}-81{\%}) and 67{\%} (61{\%}-72{\%}), respectively. A greater number of men (P <0.001) and patients with multivessel disease (P = 0.004) were treated with CABG than with PCI. Pooled estimates, based on type of revascularization, of 30 day mortality and 1 year survival were similar (7.3{\%} [6.3{\%}-8.2{\%}] for CABG vs 5.4{\%} [4.4{\%}-6.4{\%}] for PCI and 86{\%} [83{\%}-88{\%}] for CABG vs 87{\%} [84{\%}-91{\%}] for PCI, respectively). Conclusions: Available data indicate that revascularization can be performed in octogenarians with acceptable short-term and long-term outcomes; most of the evidence is, however, low level. Furthermore, it is unclear whether octogenarians derive greater survival benefit from CABG or from PCI because preprocedural risk profiles differ between intervention types. Periprocedural and long-term outcomes are, however, equivalent, and randomized, controlled trials of high-risk octogenarians are needed.",
author = "McKellar, {Stephen H.} and Brown, {Morgan L.} and Frye, {Robert L.} and Schaff, {Hartzell V} and Sundt, {Thoralf M.}",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1038/ncpcardio1348",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "738--746",
journal = "Nature Reviews Cardiology",
issn = "1759-5002",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of coronary revascularization procedures in octogenarians

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - McKellar, Stephen H.

AU - Brown, Morgan L.

AU - Frye, Robert L.

AU - Schaff, Hartzell V

AU - Sundt, Thoralf M.

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Background: Elderly patients are the fastest growing population in the US healthcare system and more patients aged 80 years and older require CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary revascularization than ever before. Because octogenarian patients have not been adequately represented in randomized trials comparing CABG and PCI, the most appropriate method of revascularization for this group of patients has not been determined. Methods: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of 66 studies of coronary revascularization in patients aged over 80 years. The primary endpoints included 30 day mortality and long-term survival. Subgroup analyses stratified by revascularization type (PCI versus CABG) were also performed. Results: Pooled estimate of 30 day mortality was 6.3% (95% CI 5.3%-7.5%), and for survival at 1, 3 and 5 years, 86% (84%-88%), 78% (74%-81%) and 67% (61%-72%), respectively. A greater number of men (P <0.001) and patients with multivessel disease (P = 0.004) were treated with CABG than with PCI. Pooled estimates, based on type of revascularization, of 30 day mortality and 1 year survival were similar (7.3% [6.3%-8.2%] for CABG vs 5.4% [4.4%-6.4%] for PCI and 86% [83%-88%] for CABG vs 87% [84%-91%] for PCI, respectively). Conclusions: Available data indicate that revascularization can be performed in octogenarians with acceptable short-term and long-term outcomes; most of the evidence is, however, low level. Furthermore, it is unclear whether octogenarians derive greater survival benefit from CABG or from PCI because preprocedural risk profiles differ between intervention types. Periprocedural and long-term outcomes are, however, equivalent, and randomized, controlled trials of high-risk octogenarians are needed.

AB - Background: Elderly patients are the fastest growing population in the US healthcare system and more patients aged 80 years and older require CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary revascularization than ever before. Because octogenarian patients have not been adequately represented in randomized trials comparing CABG and PCI, the most appropriate method of revascularization for this group of patients has not been determined. Methods: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of 66 studies of coronary revascularization in patients aged over 80 years. The primary endpoints included 30 day mortality and long-term survival. Subgroup analyses stratified by revascularization type (PCI versus CABG) were also performed. Results: Pooled estimate of 30 day mortality was 6.3% (95% CI 5.3%-7.5%), and for survival at 1, 3 and 5 years, 86% (84%-88%), 78% (74%-81%) and 67% (61%-72%), respectively. A greater number of men (P <0.001) and patients with multivessel disease (P = 0.004) were treated with CABG than with PCI. Pooled estimates, based on type of revascularization, of 30 day mortality and 1 year survival were similar (7.3% [6.3%-8.2%] for CABG vs 5.4% [4.4%-6.4%] for PCI and 86% [83%-88%] for CABG vs 87% [84%-91%] for PCI, respectively). Conclusions: Available data indicate that revascularization can be performed in octogenarians with acceptable short-term and long-term outcomes; most of the evidence is, however, low level. Furthermore, it is unclear whether octogenarians derive greater survival benefit from CABG or from PCI because preprocedural risk profiles differ between intervention types. Periprocedural and long-term outcomes are, however, equivalent, and randomized, controlled trials of high-risk octogenarians are needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=55249108434&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=55249108434&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ncpcardio1348

DO - 10.1038/ncpcardio1348

M3 - Article

C2 - 18825133

AN - SCOPUS:55249108434

VL - 5

SP - 738

EP - 746

JO - Nature Reviews Cardiology

JF - Nature Reviews Cardiology

SN - 1759-5002

IS - 11

ER -