Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Patients With Three Vessel Coronary Artery Disease A Comparison of Centers in the Same Jurisdiction With Differing Multidisciplinary Heart Team Approaches

Objectives:Referral patterns and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were compared between 2 centers within 1 jurisdiction wherein only 1 center utilizes multidisciplinary review for all patients. Background:Management of advanced coronary artery disease often involves PCI and CABG for improvements in quality of life and survival. Indications exist for PCI and CABG, with CABG demonstrating benefit in three-vessel disease (TVD). Methods:A total of 27,961 patients underwent cardiac catheterization in 2 centers within the same single-payer health jurisdiction (Center A and B) from 2017 to 2018. Rates of PCI, CABG, and outcomes of 1-year mortality, rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, and stroke were compared. Results:More patients in Center A received PCI and less received CABG compared with Center B even among patients with TVD (P<0.001). Multivariable logistic regression identified Center B as protective for mortality for TVD patients (P<0.001) and those undergoing PCI (P=0.004), but not CABG (P=0.06). Center A's 1-year mortality was increased for all patients (P=0.004) and those with TVD (P=0.011). Conclusion:Discordant outcomes exist between these 2 centers. While patients in Center A were more likely to undergo PCI than Center B and experienced decreased 1-year survival, the difference was not significant for CABG. In part, the differences are attributable to contrasting referral practices and the discrepant rates of PCI and CABG between centers. Review of all coronary artery disease patients with a multidisciplinary Heart Team including a surgical opinion may lead to a more evidence-based referral practice aligned with current clinical guidelines.