Back

Mortality is substantially lower in patients undergoing coronary bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention with three-vessel coronary disease and cardiogenic shock in the setting of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Movahed, M. R.; Siby, A.; McCoy, D.; Hashemzadeh, M.

2025-05-08 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2025.05.07.25327193 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundOptimal revascularization strategy in patients with cardiogenic shock and three-vessel coronary disease presenting with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is not well established. The goal of this study was to use the largest inpatient database to evaluate inpatient mortality of NSTEMI patients with three-vessel disease and cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary bypass surgery (CABG) vs percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MethodUsing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, and ICD-10 coding for NSTEMI, cardiogenic shock, three-vessel CABG, and three-vessel PCI, we evaluate total inpatient mortality comparing three-vessel CABG vs three-vessel PCI in adults over age 18 years. ResultsA total of 2,805 NSTEMI patients with 3-vessel disease and cardiogenic shock underwent PCI vs.7,585 undergoing CABG. CABG in the setting of NSTEMI-related cardiogenic shock and three-vessel CAD is associated with much lower mortality compared to three-vessel PCI despite multivariate adjustment. Mortality was more than twice in patients undergoing PCI vs CABG (Mortality 25.31% vs 11.22%, P<0.001, OR for CABG patients: 0.37, CI: 0.29-0.48, P<0.001). After adjusting baseline characteristics and comorbidities in multivariate analysis, CABG remained significantly associated with lower mortality (CABG OR 0.41, CI: 0.31-0.54, p<0.001). ConclusionOur data suggests that three-vessel CABG is greatly superior to PCI in NSTEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and three-vessel coronary artery disease.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.1%
2
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
14.3%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
8.2%
4
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.0%
5
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
7
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.2%
8
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
9
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.7%
10
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.7%
11
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.5%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.0%
13
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
14
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
15
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
16
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 67%
1.2%
18
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
65 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
22
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%