Skip to main content

Real-world long-term outcomes based on three therapeutic strategies in very old patients with three-vessel disease

Abstract

Background

There are relatively limited data regarding real-world outcomes in very old patients with three-vessel disease (3VD) receiving different therapeutic strategies. This study aimed to perform analysis of long-term clinical outcomes of medical therapy (MT), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this population.

Methods

We included 711 patients aged ≥ 75 years from a prospective cohort of patients with 3VD. Consecutive enrollment of these patients began from April 2004 to February 2011 at Fu Wai Hospital. Patients were categorized into three groups (MT, n = 296; CABG, n = 129; PCI, n = 286) on the basis of different treatment strategies.

Results

During a median follow-up of 7.25 years, 262 deaths and 354 major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) occurred. Multivariate Cox analysis showed that the risk of cardiac death was significantly lower for CABG compared with PCI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.475, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.232–0.974, P = 0.042). Additionally, MACCE appeared to show a trend towards a better outcome for CABG (adjusted HR = 0.759, 95% CI 0.536–1.074, P = 0.119). Furthermore, CABG was significantly superior in terms of unplanned revascularization (adjusted HR = 0.279, 95% CI 0.079–0.982, P = 0.047) and myocardial infarction (adjusted HR = 0.196, 95% CI 0.043–0.892, P = 0.035). No significant difference in all-cause death between CABG and PCI was observed. MT had a higher risk of cardiac death than PCI (adjusted HR = 1.636, 95% CI 1.092–2.449, P = 0.017). Subgroup analysis showed that there was a significant interaction between treatment strategy (PCI vs. CABG) and sex for MACCE (P = 0.026), with a lower risk in men for CABG compared with that of PCI, but not in women.

Conclusions

CABG can be performed with reasonable results in very old patients with 3VD. Sex should be taken into consideration in therapeutic decision-making in this population.

Peer Review reports

Background

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in aging populations [1]. The number of older patients with CAD requiring coronary revascularization is dramatically increasing worldwide [2]. Three-vessel disease (3VD) is a serious type of CAD and accounts for nearly 30% of patients with CAD [3, 4]. Furthermore, 3VD has higher risk of death than that of single-vessel disease [5], especially in older patients who tend to have severe comorbidities. Numerous randomized trials have previously compared the relative results of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of multivessel disease [6,7,8,9]. However, these studies did not focus on the very old population with 3VD. Limited real-world data with long-term follow-up are available on outcomes of very old patients with 3VD receiving different treatment strategies. Therefore, the present study aimed to conduct a comprehensive analysis of real-world outcomes among patients with 3VD aged ≥ 75 years undergoing PCI, CABG or medical therapy (MT) alone. The preliminary results of this study were reported in the 30th Great Wall International Congress of Cardiology scientific abstract [10].

Methods

Study design and population

This study was derived from an observational cohort consisting of 8943 patients with 3VD. These patients were prospectively and consecutively enrolled at Fu Wai Hospital from April 2004 to February 2011 (Beijing, China). The definition of 3VD was angiographic narrowing of ≥ 50% in the left circumflex, left anterior descending, and right coronary arteries, with or without involvement of the left main artery. In this study, the inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients who were ≥ 75 years of age; (2) patients who were willing to be followed up; and (3) patients with complete survival data. The final analysis included 711 patients with 3VD who were eligible. Because we obtained data of this post hoc analysis from a subpopulation of the 3VD cohort, the sample size was determined by the number of patients who met the inclusion criteria instead of being calculated in advance. The choice of therapeutic strategy was based on contemporary clinical guidelines, the judgement of cardiologist teams, and the patient's personal preference [11, 12]. Before the PCI procedure, patients were treated with aspirin and clopidogrel (300 mg or 600 mg, loading dose), and they received standard dual antiplatelet therapy for no less than 1 year after the procedure. The choice of equipment, drugs, and techniques during PCI was at the discretion of the operators. For patients who underwent CABG, standard bypass techniques were used with preferably grafting of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery. Experienced surgeons performed the procedure either using on-pump or off-pump surgical techniques on the basis of their individual preference. The ethics committee of Fu Wai Hospital approved this study and it adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was provided by all participants.

Study endpoints

We obtained information on the medical history and in-hospital data through the electronic record system of our hospital. Patients were followed up by certificated clinical research coordinators through telephone, follow-up letter, or outpatient visit. The last follow-up was finished on March 2016. All-cause death was the primary endpoint. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, which consisted of unplanned revascularization, stroke, myocardial infarction and all-cause death) and cardiac death were the secondary endpoints. Unless unequivocal non-cardiac causes could be established, all deaths were considered cardiac deaths.

Statistical analysis

Data are shown as means with standard deviations to describe continuous variables of baseline characteristics. Percentages and frequencies are shown for categorical variables. Differences in categorical variables of baseline characteristics were compared with the Pearson chi-square test and Fisher's exact test. Differences in continuous variables of baseline characteristics were compared with ANOVA and the Kruskal–Wallis test. A survival curve was shown by using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared by using the log-rank test. Variables that were considered clinically relevant or showed a significant univariate relationship with outcomes were incorporated into multivariate Cox analysis. Variables for adjustment included clinical presentation, age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, peripheral artery disease, previous stroke, SYNTAX score, previous myocardial infarction, smoker, left ventricular ejection fraction, and left main disease. Interaction was tested by using the Cox regression model to assess the effects of therapeutic strategies in subgroups. Statistical significance was defined as a two-sided α = 0.05. The statistical analyses mentioned above were performed by using IBM® SPSS® v25.0.0.0 software (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA). Moreover, we performed competing risk regression analysis with sub-distribution hazard models for cardiac death and other cardiovascular endpoints, considering competing risks for non-cardiac death and all-cause death, respectively. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) regression analysis based on propensity score was also performed in order to better balance the discrepancies among groups. Standardized mean differences were compared to evaluate the degree of baseline variable balance. A standardized mean difference less than 0.1 was regarded as a high degree of balance. The covariates included in propensity score model were as follows: age, sex, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, previous MI, previous stroke, chronic kidney disease, peripheral artery disease, smoker, clinical presentation, left main disease, LVEF and SYNTAX score. R software (version 4.0.2) was used to perform competing risk and IPTW regression analysis.

Results

This study included 711 patients for analysis, among whom 286 received PCI, 129 received CABG, and 296 received MT (Fig. 1). There were 204 female (28.7%) patients, and the median age was 77 years (interquartile range 75–79 years). Patients in the PCI group were more frequently women compared with those in the other two groups. Patients in the CABG or MT group had higher rates of chronic kidney disease, peripheral artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and significant left main disease, as well as a higher SYNTAX score compared with those in the PCI group (Table 1). The standardized mean difference values of all baseline variables except Clopidogrel after IPTW were less than 0.1 (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Fig. 1
figure1

A flow chart for subject selection. 3VD three-vessel disease, CABG coronary artery bypass grafting, MT medical therapy, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the study population

The median follow-up period was 7.25 years (interquartile range 5.75–8.75 years). During this period, 262 patients had all-cause death of whom there were 36 in the CABG group, 99 in the PCI group, and 127 in the MT group. The CABG group showed better results of unplanned revascularization (2.3% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.020), myocardial infarction (1.6% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.037), and cardiac death (7.8% vs. 15.7%, P = 0.026) compared with the PCI group. However, the rates of stroke, MACCE, and all-cause death were not significantly different between these two groups. For patients in the PCI or CABG group, the rates of cardiac death and all-cause death were significantly lower (all P < 0.05) compared with those in the MT group. Furthermore, the CABG group had a significantly higher rate of stroke (12.4% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.018) and lower rate of MACCE (41.1% vs. 53.0%, P = 0.023) compared with the MT group (Table 2). Kaplan–Meier curves for the overall study population showed similar results (Fig. 2).

Table 2 Long-term primary and secondary outcomes
Fig. 2
figure2

Cumulative survival curves for the primary and secondary endpoints in three treatment groups. Cumulative incidence curves for all-cause death (a), cardiac death (b), myocardial infarction (c), revascularization (d), stroke (e), and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (f). MACCE: major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events

Variables that were adjusted for in multivariate analysis included clinical presentation, age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, peripheral artery disease, previous stroke, the SYNTAX score, previous myocardial infarction, smoker, left ventricular ejection fraction, and left main disease. Variables that were entered into multivariate Cox analysis were considered clinically relevant or showed a univariate relationship with outcomes. Multivariate analysis showed that the outcomes of unplanned revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.279, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.079–0.982, P = 0.047), myocardial infarction (adjusted HR = 0.196, 95% CI 0.043–0.892, P = 0.035), and cardiac death (adjusted HR = 0.475, 95% CI 0.232–0.974, P = 0.042) were significantly better with CABG than with PCI. Furthermore, MACCE appeared to show a trend towards a better outcome for CABG (adjusted HR = 0.759, 95% CI 0.536–1.074, P = 0.119). PCI was related to a similar risk of long-term stroke and all-cause death compared with CABG, and was related to a lower risk of cardiac death (adjusted HR = 0.611, 95% CI 0.408–0.915, P = 0.017) compared with MT (Table 3). Furthermore, similar results were obtained by competing risk and IPTW regression analysis (Additional file 2: Table S2, Additional file 3: Table S3).

Table 3 Multivariate cox regression analysis of different treatment strategies on clinical outcomes

Subgroup analysis showed a significant interaction between treatment strategy (PCI vs. CABG) and sex for MACCE (P = 0.026). In male patients, CABG showed significantly better results regarding MACCE than PCI (HR = 0.560, 95% CI 0.378–0.831). However, in female patients, these two strategies had a similar benefit of survival from MACCE (HR = 2.064, 95% CI 0.991–4.301) (Table 4).

Table 4 Subgroup analysis on all-cause death and MACCE between PCI and CABG

Discussion

In the present study, our main findings were as follows. (1) CABG was related to lower risk of long-term unplanned revascularization, myocardial infarction, and cardiac death compared with PCI. (2) There was no difference in the rate of all-cause death between CABG and PCI. (3) The interaction effect between sex and treatment strategy (PCI vs. CABG) was significant for MACCE.

In recent years, with the techniques of PCI and CABG dramatically advancing, the relative benefits of CABG versus PCI in patients with multivessel disease have been debated regarding the long-term prognosis [6,7,8,9, 13,14,15,16]. Generally, CABG tends to have a better benefit regarding all-cause death or MACCE/MACE. Among patients with multivessel disease, a large proportion of these patients are older adults resulting from their increased longevity [17, 18]. However, there have been no randomized trials for comparing the effect of PCI and CABG in very old patients with multivessel disease, such as 3VD. Moreover, results from previous observational studies and pooled-analysis were heterogeneous [19,20,21,22]. Therefore, questions persist concerning the optimal treatment strategy of very old patients with 3VD.

We found that CABG significantly reduced long-term cardiac death, as well as unplanned revascularization and myocardial infarction, compared with PCI. Similarly, the SYNTAX trial [23] showed that, for patients with complex CAD, CABG was related to a significant reduction in cardiac mortality versus PCI. This was mainly because CABG reduced myocardial infarction-related mortality, particularly in patients with 3VD. The CREDO Kyoto sub-analysis study on age and sex showed that the interaction effects between age and therapeutic strategies (PCI vs. CABG) was significant for cardiac death. There was also an excess risk of mortality in patients aged ≥ 74 years with 3VD, while there was a neutral risk in younger patients [24]. In real clinical practice, older patients prefer less invasive PCI rather than CABG compared with younger patients. The present study suggested that CABG could also be an advisable option for very old patients aged ≥ 75 years, especially in those who have complex coronary anatomy unfavorable for PCI. This finding might help further decision-making on the choices of coronary revascularization strategies in patients with 3VD.

All-cause death in our study was comparable between the CABG and PCI groups. A previous study reported that CABG was better for an older age compared with PCI in patients with 3VD [24]. However, another study showed that long-term outcomes after CABG tended to be worse in older patients than in younger patients [25]. Older patients have increased risk factors and higher comorbidities than younger patients, as well as a limited life expectancy. These factors may impair the long-term advantages of CABG over PCI in reducing the risk of all-cause death. This is because a substantial number of older patients are likely to die from non-cardiac causes during a relatively long follow-up period. Indeed, we found that cardiac causes only accounted for approximately 40% of deaths in the CABG and PCI groups. The majority of deaths in the CABG and PCI group were non-cardiac, which supports our view to a certain extent. Additionally, the rate of stroke in the CABG group was higher than that in the PCI group, but this was not significant. Older patients are considered to have more perioperative strokes after CABG than after PCI [26]. However, the risk of stroke after CABG has significantly decreased because of increasingly refined perioperative management and operative techniques in recent years [27]. In our study, the risk of all-cause death was not significantly different between MT and PCI. However, PCI significantly reduced the risk of cardiac death compared with MT, which suggested that PCI might have a benefit for the heart.

Notably, we found a significant interaction between treatment strategy (PCI vs. CABG) and sex for MACCE. In male patients, CABG was significantly associated with a decreased risk of MACCE compared with PCI, while no such association was observed in female patients. A prospective multicenter registry showed that male patients with multivessel disease presenting with acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction had improved survival and reduced MACE with CABG compared with PCI at 5 years [28]. However, in female patients, a long-term benefit from CABG was not observed in this previous study. The difference between sexes could be related to factors such as coronary artery size, the amount of grafts received, use of arterial grafts, and diverse surgical methods [29,30,31]. Therefore, sex should be taken into consideration in selecting revascularization strategies for patients aged ≥ 75 years with 3VD.

Several limitations of this study need to be addressed. First, although multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate many confounders, residual confounding from other unmeasured factors might have been present. Second, generalization of results might be limited because data were obtained from a single-center cohort and the sample size was relatively small. More studies with a larger sample size are warranted to further confirm our study findings. Third, more specific details about revascularization procedures and drug information as well as functional tests for ischemia would be useful. However, such data were not collected.

Conclusion

CABG can be performed with reasonable results in very old patients with 3VD. Sex should be taken into consideration in therapeutic decision-making in this population.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

3VD:

three-vessel disease

CABG:

coronary artery bypass grafting

CAD:

coronary artery disease

LVEF:

left ventricular ejection fraction

MACCE:

major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events

MACE:

major adverse cardiovascular events

MI:

myocardial infarction

MT:

medical therapy

PCI:

percutaneous coronary intervention

References

  1. 1.

    Dobesh PP, Beavers CJ, Herring HR, Spinler SA, Stacy ZA, Trujillo TC. Key articles and guidelines in the management of acute coronary syndrome and in percutaneous coronary intervention: 2012 update. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(12):e348–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Cockburn J, Hildick-Smith D, Trivedi U, de Belder A. Coronary revascularisation in the elderly. Heart. 2017;103(4):316–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bradley SM, Spertus JA, Kennedy KF, Nallamothu BK, Chan PS, Patel MR, Bryson CL, Malenka DJ, Rumsfeld JS. Patient selection for diagnostic coronary angiography and hospital-level percutaneous coronary intervention appropriateness: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1630–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV, Brindis RG, Douglas PS. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(10):886–95.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Min JK, Dunning A, Lin FY, Achenbach S, Al-Mallah M, Budoff MJ, Cademartiri F, Callister TQ, Chang HJ, Cheng V, et al. Age- and sex-related differences in all-cause mortality risk based on coronary computed tomography angiography findings results from the International Multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter Registry) of 23,854 patients without known coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(8):849–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Daemen J, Boersma E, Flather M, Booth J, Stables R, Rodriguez A, Rodriguez-Granillo G, Hueb WA, Lemos PA, Serruys PW. Long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and coronary artery bypass surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis with 5-year patient-level data from the ARTS, ERACI-II, MASS-II, and SoS trials. Circulation. 2008;118(11):1146–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM, Boersma E, Booth J, Brooks MM, Carrié D, Clayton TC, Danchin N, Flather M, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet. 2009;373(9670):1190–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, Ståhle E, Feldman TE, van den Brand M, Bass EJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961–72.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Head SJ, Davierwala PM, Serruys PW, Redwood SR, Colombo A, Mack MJ, Morice MC, Holmes DR, Feldman TE, Ståhle E, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(40):2821–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    The 30th Great Wall International Congress of Cardiology / China Heart Society / Beijing Society of Cardiology. Cardiovasc Innov Appl. 2019; 4(1):C1–C150.

  11. 11.

    Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, Chambers CE, Ellis SG, Guyton RA, Hollenberg SM, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(24):e44-122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, Bittl JA, Bridges CR, Byrne JG, Cigarroa JE, Disesa VJ, Hiratzka LF, Hutter AM, et al. ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(24):123–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Serruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, Jatene A, Bonnier HJ, Schönberger JP, Buller N, Bonser R, van den Brand MJ, van Herwerden LA, et al. Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(15):1117–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Booth J, Clayton T, Pepper J, Nugara F, Flather M, Sigwart U, Stables RH. Randomized, controlled trial of coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: six-year follow-up from the Stent or Surgery Trial (SoS). Circulation. 2008;118(4):381–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Fernandez-Pereira C, Mieres J, Rodriguez AE. Long-term mortality after coronary revascularization in nondiabetic patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(1):116–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bangalore S, Guo Y, Samadashvili Z, Blecker S, Xu J, Hannan EL. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1213–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Landes U, Bental T, Levi A, Assali A, Vaknin-Assa H, Lev EI, Rechavia E, Greenberg G, Orvin K, Kornowski R. Temporal trends in percutaneous coronary interventions thru the drug eluting stent era: insights from 18,641 procedures performed over 12-year period. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92(4):E262-e270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Waldo SW, Secemsky EA, O’Brien C, Kennedy KF, Pomerantsev E, Sundt TM, McNulty EJ, Scirica BM, Yeh RW. Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2014;130(25):2295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chang M, Lee CW, Ahn JM, Cavalcante R, Sotomi Y, Onuma Y, Park DW, Kang SJ, Lee SW, Kim YH, et al. Outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus drug-eluting stents in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(3):625–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Nicolini F, Contini GA, Fortuna D, Pacini D, Gabbieri D, Vignali L, Campo G, Manari A, Zussa C, Guastaroba P, et al. Coronary artery surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians: long-term results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(2):567–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Graham MM, Ghali WA, Faris PD, Galbraith PD, Norris CM, Knudtson ML. Survival after coronary revascularization in the elderly. Circulation. 2002;105(20):2378–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Weintraub WS, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Weiss JM, O’Brien SM, Peterson ED, Kolm P, Zhang Z, Klein LW, Shaw RE, McKay C, et al. Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1467–76.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Milojevic M, Head SJ, Parasca CA, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Mack MJ, Ståhle E, Feldman TE, Dawkins KD, et al. Causes of death following PCI versus CABG in complex CAD: 5-year follow-up of SYNTAX. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(1):42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Yamaji K, Shiomi H, Morimoto T, Nakatsuma K, Toyota T, Ono K, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Kadota K, Ando K, et al. Effects of age and sex on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention relative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with triple-vessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2016;133(19):1878–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Dalén M, Ivert T, Holzmann MJ, Sartipy U. Coronary artery bypass grafting in patients 50 years or younger: a Swedish nationwide cohort study. Circulation. 2015;131(20):1748–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Peterson ED, Alexander KP, Malenka DJ, Hannan EL, O’Conner GT, McCallister BD, Weintraub WS, Grover FL. Multicenter experience in revascularization of very elderly patients. Am Heart J. 2004;148(3):486–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Yanagawa B, Algarni KD, Yau TM, Rao V, Brister SJ. Improving results for coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the elderly. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42(3):507–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kurlansky P, Herbert M, Prince S, Mack M. Coronary bypass versus percutaneous intervention: sex matters. The impact of gender on long-term outcomes of coronary revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;51(3):554–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hessian R, Jabagi H, Ngu JMC, Rubens FD. Coronary surgery in women and the challenges we face. Can J Cardiol. 2018;34(4):413–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sotomi Y, Onuma Y, Cavalcante R, Ahn JM, Lee CW, van Klaveren D, de Winter RJ, Wykrzykowska JJ, Farooq V, Morice MC et al: Geographical Difference of the Interaction of Sex With Treatment Strategy in Patients With Multivessel Disease and Left Main Disease: A Meta-Analysis From SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery), PRECOMBAT (Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease), and BEST (Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) Randomized Controlled Trials. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10(5).

  31. 31.

    Tabata M, Grab JD, Khalpey Z, Edwards FH, O’Brien SM, Cohn LH, Bolman RM. Prevalence and variability of internal mammary artery graft use in contemporary multivessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery: analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database. Circulation. 2009;120(11):935–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants for their contribution to the study. We wish to deliver special thanks to the 30th Great Wall International Congress of Cardiology for accepting the preliminary results of this study as poster presentation.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81770365) and Major State Research Development Program of the 13th Five-year Plan (Grant Nos. 2016YFC1301300, 2016YFC1301301). The funding bodies had no role in the research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript writing and submission.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BX, RH, RG, ZG, LS and JY contributed to the study design. LJ, LX,and YZ contributed to the data acquisition. DY drafted the manuscript. DY, SJ, CZ, RL, JX contributed to the analysis, or interpretation of data of the work. JY critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and aaproved the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Lei Song or Jinqing Yuan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethics committee of Fu Wai Hospital approved this study and it adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was provided in written format by all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

There are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1

. Baseline characteristics of the study population before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Additional file 2: Table S2

. Competing risks regression for cardiac death and other cardiovascular endpoints.

Additional file 3: Table S3

. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) regression analysis based on propensity score.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuan, D., Jia, S., Zhang, C. et al. Real-world long-term outcomes based on three therapeutic strategies in very old patients with three-vessel disease. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 21, 316 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02067-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Three-vessel disease
  • Very old patients
  • Medical therapy
  • Coronary artery bypass grafting
  • Percutaneous coronary intervention