Emergent coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting in patients receiving extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Hsun-Yi Fu,Yih-Sharng Chen,Hsi-Yu Yu,Nai-Hsin Chi,Ling-Yi Wei,Kevin Po-Hsun Chen,Heng-Wen Chou,Nai-Kuan Chou,Chih-Hsien Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae290
2024-08-02
Abstract:Objectives: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has emerged as a rescue for refractory cardiac arrest, of which acute coronary syndrome is a common cause. Data on the coronary revascularization strategy in patients receiving ECPR remain limited. Methods: The ECPR databases from two referral hospitals were screened for patients who underwent emergent revascularization. The baseline characteristics were matched 1:1 using propensity score between patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and those who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Outcomes, including success rate of weaning from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), hospital survival, and midterm survival in hospital survivors, were compared between CABG and PCI. Results: After matching, most of the patients (95%) had triple vessel disease. Compared with PCI (n = 40), emergent CABG (n = 40) had better early outcomes, in terms of the rates of successful ECMO weaning (71.1% vs 48.7%, P = 0.05) and hospital survival (56.4% versus 32.4%, P = 0.04). After a mean follow-up of 2 years, both revascularization strategies were associated with favourable midterm survival among hospital survivors (75.3% after CABG vs 88.9% after PCI, P = 0.49), with a trend towards fewer reinterventions in patients who underwent CABG (P = 0.07). Conclusions: In patients who received ECPR because of triple vessel disease, the hospital outcomes were better after emergent CABG than after PCI. More evidence is required to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for patients who receive ECPR.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?