Outcomes After CABG Compared With FFR-Guided PCI in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Study Overview

This study compares two treatments for patients with a type of heart condition called non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS): coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and a less invasive procedure called percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using advanced stents.

Study Goals

The main goal was to see if PCI is as effective as CABG in preventing serious health issues like death, heart attacks, and strokes within one year.

Study Methods

The research involved 1,500 patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease. They were randomly assigned to receive either CABG or PCI. The patients were monitored for three years to track their health outcomes.

Key Findings

Among the patients, 39.2% had NSTE-ACS. The results showed:

At three years, the risk of death, heart attack, or stroke was similar for patients with NSTE-ACS treated with either CABG or PCI (11.8% vs 10.0%).
For patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), CABG significantly reduced the risk of complications compared to PCI.
The lower risk of heart attacks was particularly notable in patients with CCS who underwent CABG.

Conclusions

The study concluded that for patients with NSTE-ACS, CABG and PCI have similar outcomes in terms of serious health risks after three years. However, CABG is more beneficial for patients with CCS.

Opportunities for Healthcare Providers

Based on this study, clinics can:

Set clear goals for patient outcomes when choosing between CABG and PCI.
Use AI tools to assess patient needs and tailor treatment plans.
Start small pilot projects to implement AI solutions and track their effectiveness in real-world settings.