(Circulation. 2001;103:1076.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Similarity of Ventricular Function in Patients Alive 5 Years After Randomization to Surgery or Angioplasty in the BARI Trial
From Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (R.J.G.); Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo (D.D.M.); Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (P.L.); University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (P.G., M.M.B.); and Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität Muenchen, Munich, Germany (M.S.).
Correspondence to Raymond J. Gibbons, MD, Mayo Clinic, East 16 A, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail gibbons.raymond{at}mayo.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background—Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a recognized determinant of survival in patients with coronary artery disease. In major trials comparing surgical and percutaneous revascularization approaches, the long-term effect of the coronary revascularization strategy on LVEF has not been reported.
Methods and Results—In the NHLBI-sponsored Bypass and Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) randomized trial comparing angioplasty and bypass surgery as initial treatment strategies, 1220 (75%) of the 1617 surviving randomized patients had their EF measured by radionuclide ventriculography 5 years after study entry. For the total study group, the 5-year EF in the CABG group (n=623) was 55.8±12.3, compared with 55.7±12.7 in PTCA group (n=597, P=0.82). There was no significant difference in measured EF between the CABG group and the PTCA group within multiple subgroups determined by the presence or absence of diabetes, 3-vessel disease, complete revascularization, or prior myocardial infarction. In a multiple linear regression model developed to predict 5-year EF, treatment assignment to PTCA or CABG was not significant (P=0.95). If an EF of 0 was imputed for patients who were dead and missing EF data, however, there was a higher EF in the CABG group (P=0.0018) among diabetic patients only.
Conclusions—In the BARI randomized trial, initial treatment assignment to angioplasty was not associated with any difference in long-term ventricular function compared with initial treatment assignment to surgery. These results apply, however, only to patients who were alive at 5 years.
Key Words: ventricles • bypass • angioplasty • coronary disease
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Several trials with either coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) have demonstrated comparable survival at 1 year,1 3 years,2 and 5 years3 after coronary revascularization.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a recognized determinant of survival in patients with coronary heart disease.4 LVEF is a covariable of benefit derived by CABG.5 Although factors that may affect LV function after revascularization, including perioperative myocardial infarction (MI),2 3 cumulative MI,1 2 3 and subsequent repeat intervention,1 2 have been recorded in the major trials comparing surgical and percutaneous revascularization procedures, the long-term effect of coronary revascularization strategy (based on the intention to treat) on LVEF has not been described.
The NHLBI-sponsored BARI Multicenter Trial was designed primarily to test the hypothesis that long-term clinical outcome of patients with multivessel coronary disease suitable for treatment with either PTCA or CABG is not compromised when PTCA is chosen as the initial treatment strategy.3 6 Death and MI at 7 years after randomization were greater after initial treatment with PTCA than with CABG, a difference entirely attributable to diabetic patients on drug therapy.6 Baseline LV function was not associated with an adverse 5-year cardiac mortality or with the composite end point of cardiac mortality or MI.7
A large subset of the BARI population underwent serial LV function assessments with radionuclide ventriculography (RVG). The primary hypothesis of the present analysis is that initial treatment assignment to PTCA, compared with initial treatment assignment to CABG, is not associated with any difference in measured LVEF at 5 years, independent of the completeness of coronary revascularization, and the baseline presence or absence of diabetes, 3-vessel disease, and abnormal LV function. The present study reports the relationship among primary and secondary outcomes, baseline and 5-year RVG LV function, comorbidities (eg, diabetes), and coexistent coronary artery anatomy (before and after revascularization) in a large BARI patient subset followed up for 5 years after randomization to either CABG or PTCA.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
BARI Trial and Study Group
A detailed description of the BARI study design, protocol, and clinical characteristics of the patients at entry has been published previously.3 4 8 Briefly, patients who had multivessel coronary artery disease, severe angina, or ischemia and were suitable for both PTCA and CABG were randomly assigned to an initial treatment strategy of CABG or PTCA. The primary clinical indications for coronary revascularization included (1) non–Q-wave MI or unstable angina stabilized for 4 hours to 6 weeks; (2) stable class III or IV angina pectoris; (3) stable class I or II angina with either severe ischemia on noninvasive testing, Q-wave MI stabilized for 24 hours to 30 days, or resting EF <50%; or (4) no angina during the 6 weeks before entry but objective evidence of severe ischemia on noninvasive testing and either prior Q-wave MI or history of prior angina. Patients were considered ineligible if any of the following criteria were present: single-vessel disease, age <17 or
80 years, prior coronary revascularization procedure, left main
coronary stenosis 50%, or noncardiac illness expected to limit
survival. From August 1988 through August 1991, 1829 patients consented
to the randomization process; 915 were assigned to PTCA and 914 to
CABG. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics
between the 2 treatment groups. The protocol was approved by the
institutional review boards at the participating
institutions. Of the 1829 patients who were initially randomized in the BARI trial, 212 died or were inactivated during the next 4.5 years. The remaining 1617 patients were alive at 4.5 years and eligible for measurement of EF by RVG, which by protocol was to be performed between 4.5 and 5.5 years after study entry. Of those eligible, EF was measured in 1220, or 75%. The remaining 25% of patients did not undergo RVG for a variety of reasons, most commonly patient refusal, geographic inaccessibility, severe noncardiac illness, or patient death between 4.5 and 5.5 years after study entry.
Definitions used in the BARI trial have been published
previously.3 4 8
Baseline angiographic data, including a measure of EF, were analyzed at
the clinical sites and at the BARI angiographic core laboratory at
Stanford University; analyses in this study were based on core
laboratory angiographic data. Normal LV function was defined as EF
50, or when EF was missing, wall motion score 
10. For this study,
intercurrent MI was one occurring between randomization and 5-year
RVG.
Radionuclide Ventriculography
RVG was performed between 4.5 and 5.5 years after
patient enrollment by the gated equilibrium technique according to
detailed instructions provided in the study protocol. Acquisition and
processing of the studies were performed by each center to determine
EF. Because of budgetary constraints, no core laboratory processing was
performed. A quality control study was completed by each center before
its certification to perform RVG within the
protocol.
Quality Control Study
As part of the quality control study, 20 patient
studies were submitted to each center for processing by designated
operators. All centers were then compared with respect to EF,
end-diastolic frame and counts, end-systolic frame and counts, and
background counts. The EF for each patient for each operator was
compared with the mean for all operators to compute a correlation
coefficient and a mean deviation. The median value among operators for
the correlation coefficient was 0.97, and the median value for the
deviation was 3.7 EF points. Prespecified criteria were used to
identify and investigate quality control problems at each site on the
basis of these data before site certification; there were few such
problems.
Statistical Analysis
Differences in baseline characteristics between
patients with 5-year EF data available versus those with missing
measurements and between patients with 5-year EF data randomized to
PTCA versus CABG were assessed by 
2 tests
or Fisher’s exact tests for dichotomous variables and
t tests or Wilcoxon tests for
continuous variables.
Differences in measured EF by treatment assignment in the entire cohort and in patient subgroups were assessed by t tests. Assuming an SD of 12 points for EF measurements, the power to detect a difference in EF of 2 points was 83%, and the power to detect a difference of 3 points was 99%.
Two secondary analyses were performed. In the first, a
2 test was performed to compare the
number of patients by treatment assignment who had a measured EF above
or below 2 arbitrary cutpoints: 30 and 40. The second analysis was
performed on the entire BARI randomized cohort to estimate the possible
effect of missing values. Patients who were alive at 5.5 years but
missing EF data were assigned an EF of 55.7 (the mean EF for patients
with EF measurements). Patients who were dead at 5.5 years and missing
EF data were assigned an EF of 0. Differences in measured-imputed EF
were assessed by a Wilcoxon test.
A multivariate linear regression model was developed to predict 5-year EF from baseline clinical variables. Standard stepwise regression methods (with a P<0.10 entry criterion) were used to initially identify baseline factors associated with 5-year EF. A final model was created by forcing the treatment variable (PTCA versus CABG) into the initial model and then retaining variables with P<0.05. The parameter estimate in the linear regression model is the estimated change in EF given the category indicated compared with its complement (ie, female to male). The baseline LV function used in this model was measured by contrast ventriculography.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Selection of Patients
Among the patients eligible at 4.5 years to undergo RVG, the patients who underwent RVG were compared with those who did not. The 2 groups differed significantly with respect to a number of baseline characteristics (Table 1
). The patients in whom data from RVG were
missing were as a group older, less likely to be white, and more likely
to be female and to have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease,
treated diabetes, unstable angina/non–Q-wave MI, and major ECG
abnormalities.
|
The selection factors that influence the performance of RVG,
however, did not appear to be preferentially associated with either
PTCA or CABG.
Table 2 shows the baseline characteristics for 623 patients
who underwent RVG after randomization to CABG compared with the 597
patients who underwent RVG after randomization to PTCA. These 2 groups
did not differ significantly with respect to multiple baseline
characteristics, demonstrating that the initial randomization process
remained valid in the subgroup of patients who underwent
RVG.
|
EF Measurements, Overall and by Initial
Surgical Graft Method
For the total study group of 1220 patients, the EF in
the CABG group was 55.8±12.3, compared with 55.7±12.7 in the PTCA
group (P=0.82;
Figure 1). There was also no difference between the CABG
group and the PTCA group in the prevalence of patients with low EFs
(3.1% versus 3.4% for EF<30,
P=0.77, and 10.0% versus
11.7% for EF<40,
P=0.32).
|
When the analysis was restricted to patients who received
their assigned treatment (n=1204) and the patients randomized to CABG
were divided into those who received saphenous vein grafts only (n=109;
EF 56.1±11.6) and those who received 1 internal mammary artery graft
(n=505; EF 55.7±12.4), there was still no effect of initial
revascularization on EF (P=0.96
for a 3-group ANOVA including those randomized to PTCA; n=591; EF
55.7±12.7).
Effect of Subsequent Surgery in the PTCA
Group
Among patients who received their assigned treatment,
patients randomized to PTCA who did not receive subsequent CABG had a
higher EF at 5 years (n=414; EF 56.9±11.9) than patients who were
randomized to PTCA and received subsequent CABG (n=177; EF 52.9±14.0)
or those randomized to CABG (n=614; EF 55.8±12.2)
(Figure 2; P=0.0014
for a 3-group ANOVA and P=0.017
for PTCA only versus patients ever receiving
CABG).
|
Subgroup Analyses
There was no significant difference in measured EF
between patients randomized to PTCA and patients randomized to CABG
within multiple subgroups
(Table 3;
Figure 3), including treated diabetes, no treated diabetes,
3-vessel disease, 2-vessel disease, complete revascularization,
incomplete revascularization, prior or intercurrent MI, and no prior or
intercurrent MI.
|
|
Linear Regression Models
The multiple linear regression model developed to
predict 5-year EF by RVG from baseline parameters included the baseline
LV function, which was determined by contrast ventriculography in most,
but not all, patients
(Table 4). The 5-year RVG EF was higher in the presence of
normal LV function at baseline and female sex. Five-year EF was lower
in the presence of a major Q-wave on ECG, a history of prior MI, 1
diffuse coronary lesion, or 1 total coronary occlusion. Treatment
assignment to PTCA or CABG was not significant
(P=0.95).
|
Secondary Imputation Analysis
When EF values were assigned to patients with missing
data, there was no evidence of a treatment difference regarding EF in
the BARI randomized cohort
(P=0.25,
Table 5). A difference favoring the CABG group was
significant in the diabetic patients
(P=0.0018) but not in the
nondiabetic patients (P=0.83),
reflecting the greater number of deaths in diabetic patients in the
PTCA group.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
These data demonstrate that in the BARI randomized trial, initial treatment assignment to angioplasty did not result in any difference in LV function compared with initial treatment assignment to surgery in patients alive at 5 years. Although there was considerable variability in LVEF measured at 5 years by RVG in both the surgery and angioplasty groups, the 2 distributions were very similar, as confirmed by the value of P=0.82 for the comparison between the 2 groups and the similar percentages of patients with low EFs.
There was also no difference in EF between patients randomized to surgery and those randomized to angioplasty in the designated subgroups of patients with and without complete revascularization, 3-vessel disease, treated diabetes, and prior MI. The use of an internal mammary artery graft at the time of surgery had no significant effect on EF. The multivariate model to predict 5-year EF on the basis of baseline parameters, including baseline ventricular function measurements, failed to show any significant effect of initial treatment assignment after adjustment for important baseline variables. Thus, in patients alive at 5 years in the BARI randomized trial who underwent RVG to determine EF, there is no evidence of any effect of initial treatment assignment. Although EF was higher in patients randomized to PTCA who did not undergo subsequent CABG, these patients were presumably those with the least eventful clinical course.
Ventricular function is the most important determinant of
prognosis in patients with chronic coronary artery
disease.5 9 10 11
Although its importance is generally acknowledged, the relative
magnitude of its effect is not always recognized. For example, in
medically treated patients in the CASS trial, the
2 value associated with the angiographic
LV score was 429, compared with a 2 value
of 72 for the number of diseased vessels, which was the next most
important variable.11 Thus,
ventricular function appeared to be prognostically much more important
than the next most important variable. Similar results have been
demonstrated in multiple other data
banks.10 12
Several analyses have also confirmed the importance of ventricular
function in determining prognosis after coronary
revascularization.13 14
Although the significance of the extent of coronary artery disease is
substantially reduced by coronary revascularization, baseline
ventricular function remains important as a determinant of outcome
after revascularization. Because of its recognized importance on the
basis of all this evidence, LVEF measured at 5 years was prospectively
designated as an important secondary end point at the time of the
design of the BARI trial.
The primary end point of the BARI randomized trial was death and MI at 5 years after randomization.3 There was no overall difference in this end point according to initial treatment assignment, although a significant difference emerged with longer follow-up.6 Subsequent reports from the BARI randomized trial have included reports on cardiac mortality,7 diabetes,15 functional status,16 sex effects,17 and age.18 This article is the first to report the long-term ventricular function data.
Other randomized trials have been conducted to compare angioplasty and surgery as initial revascularization strategies.1 2 Data have been reported on clinical end points, treadmill exercise testing, exercise thallium imaging, and recurrent revascularization. We are not aware of any previous reports on long-term ventricular function from any of the other randomized trials comparing surgery and angioplasty.
This study has a number of limitations. Because of budgetary constraints, there was no core or central laboratory for the interpretation of the BARI ventricular function data. As outlined previously, an extensive quality control effort was undertaken to certify the Nuclear Cardiology Laboratory of each center participating in this study before the acquisition of RVG data. A set of standardized instructions for the performance of these studies was provided. There was generally excellent agreement between the centers on a sample group of 20 patient studies that were processed at each center. Prespecified criteria were used to identify and address possible quality control problems at individual centers. Despite these extensive efforts, however, the use of individual center processing probably increased the variability in the data compared with core laboratory processing. This increase in variability would reduce the power of this study to detect very small differences between the groups.
A second limitation is the absence of RVG data on 25% of the patients who were alive and eligible at 5 years. The patients who did not undergo RVG differed significantly from those who did with respect to a number of important baseline characteristics. They were older and more likely to have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, treated diabetes, unstable angina or non–Q-wave MI, and major ECG abnormalities at the time of enrollment. These differences suggest that those patients who did not undergo RVG were "sicker" than those who did. It is therefore possible that this group had lower EFs than the patients who had measurements performed. Among those patients who underwent RVG, however, the patients randomized to surgery and the patients randomized to angioplasty were well matched with respect to multiple baseline characteristics. This would suggest that the selection process determining which patients did not undergo RVG was not associated with initial treatment assignment. The results presented here, ie, the absence of a difference according to initial treatment assignment, can probably be extrapolated to those patients who did not undergo RVG.
A third limitation is that an analysis of measurements performed at 5 years does not include any patients who died before that time. These results therefore apply only to patients alive at 5 years. This qualification is especially important with respect to the subgroup of patients with treated diabetes, in whom earlier reports from the BARI randomized trial showed differences in event rate with respect to initial treatment assignment.6 7 As shown in the secondary analysis, which used imputation, there were no overall differences between the CABG group and the PTCA group when patients who were dead and missing EF data were assigned an EF of 0. A difference was observed, however, in the subgroup of diabetic patients. The power of this study to detect small differences in some of the smaller subgroups of survivors should also be recognized. For example, only 177 patients in the subgroup with treated diabetes underwent RVG at 5 years. The power to detect a difference in EF of 2 points according to initial treatment assignment in this subgroup would be only 19%, and the power to detect a difference of 5 points would be 76%.
Finally, the number of patients with EF<50% at the time of randomization was modest (169/909, or 19%, with measured EF), and the number of patients with EF<30% was even smaller (7/909, or 0.8%). The power of this study to compare angioplasty and surgery with respect to the recovery of ventricular function in patients with chronically ischemic myocardium is very limited.
Despite these limitations, we believe that these data prove that in patients alive at 5 years, initial treatment assignment to angioplasty is not associated with a difference in long-term ventricular function compared with initial treatment assignment to surgery. These data extend the conclusions of the previous publications from the BARI randomized trial. In patients with multivessel coronary disease who are eligible for treatment with either angioplasty or surgery, initial treatment with angioplasty is not associated with a penalty with respect to long-term ventricular function among 5-year survivors of coronary revascularization.
Received May 24, 2000; revision received October 27, 2000; accepted October 27, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. CABRI Trial Participants. First-year results of the CABRI (Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularization Investigation). Lancet. 1995;346:1179–1184.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
King SB, Lembo NJ,
Weintraub WS, et al, for the Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial
(EAST). A randomized trial comparing coronary angioplasty with coronary
bypass surgery. N Engl J
Med. 1994;331:1044–1050.
3.
The Bypass
Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators.
Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with
multivessel disease. N Engl J
Med. 1996;335:217–225.
4.
Mock MB, Ringqvist
I, Fisher LD, et al. Survival of medically treated patients in
the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) registry.
Circulation. 1982;66:562–568.
5. CASS Principal Investigators and their Associates. Myocardial infarction and mortality in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:750–758.[Abstract]
6.
The BARI
Investigators. Seven-year outcome in the bypass angioplasty
revascularization investigation (BARI) by treatment and diabetic
status. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:1122–1129.
7.
Chaitman BR, Rosen
AD, Williams DO, et al, on behalf of the BARI Investigators. Myocardial
infarction and cardiac mortality in the Bypass Angioplasty
Revascularization Investigation (BARI) randomized trial.
Circulation. 1997;96:2162–2170.
8. Bourassa MG, Roubin GS, Detre KM, et al, and the BARI Study Group. Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation: patient screening, selection, and recruitment. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75:3C–8C.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Emond M, Mock MB,
Davis KB, et al. Long-term survival of medically treated patients in
the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry.
Circulation. 1994;90:2645–2657.
10.
Harris PJ,
Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, et al. Survival in medically treated coronary
artery disease. Circulation. 1979;60:1259–1269.
11. Weiner DA, Ryan TJ, McCabe CH, et al. Prognostic importance of a clinical profile and exercise test in medically treated patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984;3:772–779.[Abstract]
12.
Hammermeister KE,
DeRouen TA, Dodge HT. Variables predictive of survival in patients with
coronary disease: selection by univariate and multivariate analyses
from the clinical, electrocardiographic, exercise, arteriographic, and
quantitative angiographic evaluations.
Circulation. 1979;59:421–430.
13. Hammermeister KE, DeRouen TA, Dodge HT. Comparison of survival of medically and surgically treated coronary disease patients in Seattle Heart Watch: a nonrandomized study. Circulation. 1982;65:53–59.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Cosgrove DM, Loop FD, Lytle BW, et al. Determinants of 10-year survival after primary myocardial revascularization. Ann Surg. 1985;202:480–490.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15.
BARI
Investigators. Influence of diabetes on 5-year mortality and morbidity
in a randomized trial comparing CABG and PTCA in patients with
multivessel disease: the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization
Investigation (BARI).
Circulation. 1997;96:1761–1769.
16.
Writing Group for
the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI)
Investigators. Five-year clinical and functional outcome comparing
bypass surgery and angioplasty in patients with multivessel coronary
disease. A multicenter randomized trial.
JAMA. 1997;277:715–721.
17.
Jacobs AK, Kelsey
SF, Brooks MM, et al. Better outcome for women compared with men
undergoing coronary revascularization: a report from the Bypass
Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI).
Circulation. 1998;98:1279–1285.
18.
Mullany CJ, Mock
MB, Brooks MM, et al. Effect of age in the Bypass Angioplasty
Revascularization Investigation (BARI) randomized trial.
Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:396–403.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  D. M. Bravata, A. L. Gienger, K. M. McDonald, V. Sundaram, M. V. Perez, R. Varghese, J. R. Kapoor, R. Ardehali, D. K. Owens, and M. A. Hlatky Systematic Review: The Comparative Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Ann Intern Med, November 20, 2007; 147(10): 703 - 716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||