Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Influence of age on the clinical outcomes of coronary revascularisation for the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions: Sirolimus-eluting stent vs. coronary artery bypass surgery and bare metal stent, insight from the multicentre randomised Arterial Revascularisation Therapy Study Part I (ARTS-I) and Part II (ARTS-II)

  • Victor M. Legrand
  • , Scot Garg
  • , Patrick W. Serruys
  • , Kari S. Virtanen
  • , Günter Szurawitzki
  • , Vassilis Voudris
  • , Alessandro Fontanelli
  • , Knut Endersen
  • , Igor Kranjec
  • , Tessa Rademaker
  • , Christodoulos I. Stefanidis
  • , Kristel Wittebols
  • CHU Sart-Tilman
  • Erasmus MC
  • Helsinki University Central Hospital
  • Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Essen
  • Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center
  • San Bortolo Hospital
  • Riskhospital
  • Department of Surgery
  • Cardialysis BV
  • Hippokratio Hospital
  • Johnson and Johnson, Inc NJ

Research output: Contribution to a Journal (Peer & Non Peer)Articlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of age on the procedural results and subsequent clinical outcomes in patients with multivessel disease (MVD) treated either by coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without drug eluting stents, based on data of the Arterial Revascularisation Therapies Study (ARTS) part I and part II. The potential influence of age in determining the most appropriate revascularisation strategy for patients with MVD is largely unknown. Methods and results: Three year clinical outcome of ARTS I patients randomised to PCI with bare metal stent (BMS) (n= 600) or CABG (n= 605), and matched patients treated by PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in ARTS II (n= 607) were reviewed according to four age quartiles. Endpoints were measured in terms of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events MACCE) during hospital stay and up to three years. The frequency of female, diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, pulmonary disease, as well as lesion complexity increased with age. At three years, MACCE free survival was comparable between patients treated by CABG or SES PCI, regardless of age quartile. The incidence of MACCE was higher among ARTS I BMS treated patients in all but the second age quartile. This was primarily related to a higher need for repeat revascularisation among BMS treated patients. However, age, which emerged as a strong independent predictor of MACCE following CABG (p<0.005), was not predictive of adverse events following PCI. Conversely, diabetes was the strongest independent predictor of MACCE among PCI treated patients (p<0.02), but didn't affect three-year outcomes following CABG. Conclusions: Age seems to influence the CABG outcome in-hospital but not PCI. PCI-SES could offer lower immediate risk in patients with MVD and comparable long-term outcome as CABG especially in older patients. The worst outcome of PCI-BMS group is primarily related to the need for repeat revascularisation. Diabetes is the most important predictor of MACCE following PCI.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)838-845
Number of pages8
JournalEuroIntervention
Volume6
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2011
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Ageing
  • Bare metal stents
  • Coronary artery disease
  • Revascularisation
  • Sirolimus-eluting stents
  • Surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Influence of age on the clinical outcomes of coronary revascularisation for the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions: Sirolimus-eluting stent vs. coronary artery bypass surgery and bare metal stent, insight from the multicentre randomised Arterial Revascularisation Therapy Study Part I (ARTS-I) and Part II (ARTS-II)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this