Bayesian Inference Supports the Use of Bypass Surgery Over Percutaneous Coronary Intervention To Reduce Mortality in Diabetic Patients with Multivessel Coronary Disease
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2015.04.01.3Keywords:
Health policy and outcome research, catheter-based coronary interventions, stents, CV surgery, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus.Abstract
Background: Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery may confer a survival advantage over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), but results of individual studies have been mixed. The primary aim of the current study was to compare mortality rates in diabetic patients with multivessel CAD randomized to either or CABG or PCI at 5 years or longest follow-up.
Methods: Using a Bayesian approach, we updated a prior probability distribution elicited from 8 clinical trials (N=2024) with the likelihood obtained from the Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease (FREEDOM) (N=1460) to determine whether clinical trial evidence supports the underlying hypothesis that CABG is superior to PCI for diabetics with multivessel CAD.
Results: A conjugate normal model comparing mortality rates favored the use of CABG (posterior mean odds ratio [OR] = 0.58, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] = 0.48–0.71). Models weighted by the use of drug-eluting stents also favored the use of CABG over PCI (OR = 0.61, 95% BCI 0.48–0.78), as did models weighted by study age (OR=0.64, 95% BCI 0.52–0.80) or use of arterial conduits (OR=0.64, 95% BCI 0.51–0.81). The results were supported by a Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis using a non-informative prior distribution (OR=0.55, 95% BCI 0.37–0.76).
Conclusions: By integrating evidence from various studies, Bayesian methods directly support the underlying hypothesis that revascularization with CABG improves survival compared with PCI in diabetic patients with multivessel CAD.
References
Roffi M, Brandle M. Diabetes. In: Topol EJ, Teirstein PS, editors. Textbook of Interventional Cardiology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier 2012; pp. 30-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4377-2358-8.00003-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4377-2358-8.00003-6
The 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: 1761-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.96.6.1761 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.96.6.1761
Farkhouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2375-2384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1211585 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1211585
Verma S, Farkouh ME, Yanagawa B, et al. Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2013; 1: 317-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70089-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70089-5
Bangalore S, Toklu B, Feit F. Outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with diabetes mellitus: Can newer generation drug-eluting stents bridge the gap? Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001346
Hakeem A, Garg N, Bhatti S, Rajpurohit N, Ahmed Z, Uretsky BF. Effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents compared with bypass surgery in diabetics with multivessel coronary disease: comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical data. J Am Heart Assoc 2013; 2: e000354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.113.000354 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.113.000354
Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health Care Evaluations. Chichester, England: Wiley 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/0470092602
Abizaid A, Costa MA, Centemero M, et al. Clinical and economic impact of diabetes mellitus on percutaneous and surgical treatment of multivessel coronary disease patients: insights from the Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study (ARTS) trial. Circulation 2001; 104: 533-538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/hc3101.093700 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/hc3101.093700
Rodriguez AE, Baldi J, Fernandez Pereira C, et al. Five-year follow-up of the Argentine randomized trial of coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II). J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 582-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.12.081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.12.081
Hueb W, Gersh BJ, Costa F, et al. Impact of diabetes on five-year outcomes of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 83: 93-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.08.050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.08.050
The SoS Investigators. Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 965-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11078-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11078-6
Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 432-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.014
Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Morice M-C, et al. Treatment of complex coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes: 5-year results comparing outcomes of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in the SYNTAX trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 43: 1006-1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezt017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezt017
Kamelesh M, Sharp TG, Tang XC, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in United States veterans with diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61: 808-816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.044
Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guidelines 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. Circulation 2011: e574-e65 plus Data Supplement 1.
Lunn D, Jackson C, Best N, Thomas A, Spiegelhalter D. The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b13613
Albert J. Bayesian Computation with R. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007.
Ibrahim JG, Chen M-H. Power prior distributions for regression models. Stat Sci 2000; 15: 46-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/ss/1009212673 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1009212673
Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b16018
He Y, Bittl JA, Wouhib A, Normand S-LT. Case study in cardiovascular medicine: unprotected left main coronary artery disease. In: Biondi-Zoccai G, editor Network Meta-Analysis: Evidence Synthesis with Mixed Treatment Comparison. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 2014.
Gelfand AE, Smith AFM. Sampling-based approaches to calculate marginal densities. J Am Stat Assoc 1990; 85: 398-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10476213 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10476213
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria 2013.
Thomas A, O'Hara B, Ligges U, Sturtz S. Making BUGS Open. R News 2006.
Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: the P value fallacy. Ann Int Med 1999; 130: 995-1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00008
Diamond GA, Kaul S. How would the Reverend Bayes interpret high-sensitivity troponin? Circulation 2010; 121: 1172-1175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181d839e8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181d839e8
Fihn SD, Blankenship JC, Alexander KP, et al. 2014 ACCF/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS focused update of the guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the Amercan College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 2014; 130: 1749-1767. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000095 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000095
Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS. Clinical trials. Statistical Methods in Clinical Research. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science 2002; pp. 591-647.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat in Med 2002; 21: 2313-2324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.1201 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1201
Brophy JM, Belisle P, Joseph L. Evidence for use of coronary stents. A hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Int Med 2003; 138: 777-786. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-138-10-200305200-00005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-138-10-200305200-00005
Al Suwaidi J, Holmes DR Jr, Salam AM, Lennon R, Berger PB. Impact of coronary artery stents on mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction: meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing a strategy of rountine stenting with that of balloon angioplasty. Am Heart J 2004; 147: 756-758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2003.11.025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2003.11.025
Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Pache J, et al. Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1030-1039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067484 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067484
Trikalinos TA, Alsheikh-Ali AA, Tatsioni A, Nallamothu BK, Kent DM. Percutaneous coronary interventions for non-acute coronary artery disease: a quantitative 20-year synopsis and a network meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373: 911-918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60319-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60319-6
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Christopher D. Lang, Yulei He, John A. Bittl
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Policy for Journals/Articles with Open Access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work
Policy for Journals / Manuscript with Paid Access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Publisher retain copyright .
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work .
