Abstract
Background In patients with severe renal failure, coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) was found to have better long-term outcomes than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aims to provide a retrospective analysis of short-term in-hospital peri-operative outcomes between PCI and CABG in patients with severe renal failure.
Methods Patients who underwent CABG and PCI in Q4 2015-2020 were identified in National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Patients of age<40 were excluded for congenital heart defects. Patients with comorbidity of severe renal failure were included. Between patients undergoing PCI and CABG, preoperative variables were compared and corrected in multivariable logistic regression examining their in-hospital peri-operative outcomes. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were estimated for mortality and morbidities.
Results In NIS, 4,512 CABG and 13,242 PCI cases were identified. Compared to CABG, patients who underwent PCI had lower mortality (4.24% vs 5.47%, aOR 0.725, p<0.0001) and lower morbidity including heart failure (0.14% vs 2.97%, aOR 0.044, p<0.0001), stroke (0.12% vs 0.47%, aOR 0.264, p<0.0001), respiratory complications (0.51% vs 7.34%, aOR 0.063, p<0.0001), renal complications (0.05% vs 0.49%, aOR 0.075, p<0.0001), acute kidney injury (8.67% vs 12.66%, aOR 0.646, p<0.0001), deep wound complications (0.02% vs 0.35%, aOR 0.042, p < 0.0001), shock (0.22% vs 0.95%, aOR 0.228, p<0.0001), and length of in-hospital stay over 7 days (24.75% vs 73.52%, aOR 0.106, p<0.0001).
Conclusion NIS is a comprehensive database of nationwide providers, providing robust power in analysis. In patients with severe renal failure, PCI offers an advantage over CABG in terms of short-term in-hospital perioperative outcomes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences waived ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclosure: The authors have no conflict of interest.
Informed Patient Consent: Given the use of retrospective, de-identified NIS data, this study was exempted from IRB approval.
Meeting Presentation: This paper is to be presented at The 2023 Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Coronary Conference, Miami, FL, June 3-4, 2023.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
