Dataset Information

Addressing unmeasured confounding bias with a prior knowledge guided approach: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

ABSTRACT: Unmeasured confounding undermines the validity of observational studies. Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" of study types, we often observe divergent findings between RCTs and empirical settings. We present the "L-table", a simulation-based, prior knowledge (e.g., RCTs) guided approach that estimates the true effect adjusting for the potential influence of unmeasured confounders when using observational data. Using electronic health record data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California, we compare the effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on endpoints at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. We applied the L-table approach to the propensity score adjusted cohort to derive the omitted-confounder-adjusted estimated effects. After the L-table adjustment, CABG patients are 57.6% less likely to encounter major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) at 1 year (OR [95% CI] 0.424 [0.396, 0.517]), 56.4% less likely at 3 years (OR [95% CI] 0.436 [0.369, 0.527]), and 48.9% less likely at 5 years (OR [95% CI] 0.511 [0.451, 0.538]). CABG patients are also 49.5% less likely to die by the end of 10 years than PCI patients (OR [95% CI] 0.505 [0.446, 0.582]). We found the estimated true effects all shifted towards CABG as a more effective procedure that led to better health outcomes compared to PCI. Unlike existing sensitivity tools, the L-table approach explicitly lays out probable values and can therefore better support clinical decision-making. We recommend using L-table as a supplement to available techniques of sensitivity analysis.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10742-022-00282-y.

SUBMITTER: Duan L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9210342 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Addressing unmeasured confounding bias with a prior knowledge guided approach: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

Duan Lewei L Lee Ming-Sum MS Doctor Jason N JN Adams John L JL

Health services & outcomes research methodology 20220621 1

Unmeasured confounding undermines the validity of observational studies. Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" of study types, we often observe divergent findings between RCTs and empirical settings. We present the "L-table", a simulation-based, prior knowledge (e.g., RCTs) guided approach that estimates the true effect adjusting for the potential influence of unmeasured confounders when using observational data. Using electronic health record data from Ka ...[more]

PMID: 35757283

Similar Datasets

Project description:Large number of patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) need repeat revascularization yearly, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the optimal treatment strategy for such patients. However, it is still controversial whether PCI of native coronary artery or bypass graft is more beneficial. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcomes between native coronary artery vs. bypass graft PCI in patients with prior CABG. A total of 1,276 patients with prior CABG who underwent index PCI of native coronary artery (n=1,072) or bypass graft (n=204) were retrospectively examined. Patients were divided into native group and graft group according to the target vessel. The outcomes of the two groups were compared by using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and Cox regression analysis. The primary endpoint was the composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), which included all-cause death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Compared with native group, patients in graft group had higher risk of slow-flow/no-reflow phenomenon (1.5% vs. 0.1%, P=0.011 before IPTW, and 2.2% vs. 0.1%, P<0.001 after IPTW) and peri-procedural stroke (0.3% vs. 0, P=0.021 after IPTW). During a median follow-up period of 43 months, there was similar risk of MACCE between two groups. Notably, patients in graft group had a significantly higher incidence of non-fatal MI compared with native group regardless with or without IPTW (7.8% vs. 3.8%, P=0.018 and 8.3% vs. 3.9%, P=0.030, separately). After adjusting for confounding by using Cox regression, bypass graft PCI was associated with a higher risk of non-fatal MI (HR: 2.091, 95% CI: 1.069-4.089; P=0.031), but similar results in MACCE (HR: 1.077, 95% CI: 0.817-1.419; P=0.599) compared with native group. This study found that native coronary artery might be preferred for PCI in patients with prior CABG because of lower rates of slow-flow/no-reflow, peri-procedural stroke, and non-fatal MI at follow-up.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with traditional single-arterial coronary artery bypass graft (SA-CABG) has been associated with superior intermediate-term survival and reintervention compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using either bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES).ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate longer-term outcomes including the potential added advantage of multiarterial coronary artery bypass graft (MA-CABG).MethodsWe studied 8,402 single-institution, primary revascularization, multivessel coronary artery disease patients: 2,207 BMS-PCI (age 66.6 ± 11.9 years); 2,381 DES-PCI (age 65.9 ± 11.7 years); 2,289 SA-CABG (age 69.3 ± 9.0 years); and 1,525 MA-CABG (age 58.3 ± 8.7 years). Patients with myocardial infarction within 24 h, shock, or left main stents were excluded. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to separately compare 9-year all-cause mortality and unplanned reintervention for BMS-PCI and DES-PCI to respective propensity-matched SA-CABG and MA-CABG cohorts.ResultsBMS-PCI was associated with worse survival than SA-CABG, especially from 0 to 7 years (p = 0.015) and to a greater extent than MA-CABG was (9-year follow-up: 76.3% vs. 86.9%; p < 0.001). The surgery-to-BMS-PCI hazard ratios (HR) were as follows: versus SA-CABG, HR: 0.87; and versus MA-CABG, HR: 0.38. DES-PCI showed similar survival to SA-CABG except for a modest 0 to 3 years surgery advantage (HR: 1.06; p = 0.615). Compared with MA-CABG, DES-PCI exhibited worse survival at 5 (86.3% vs. 95.6%) and 9 (82.8% vs. 89.8%) years (HR: 0.45; p <0.001). Reintervention was substantially worse with PCI for all comparisons (all p <0.001).ConclusionsMultiarterial surgical revascularization, compared with either BMS-PCI or DES-PCI, resulted in substantially enhanced death and reintervention-free survival. Accordingly, MA-CABG represents the optimal therapy for multivessel coronary artery disease and should be enthusiastically adopted by multidisciplinary heart teams as the best evidence-based therapy.

Dataset Information

Addressing unmeasured confounding bias with a prior knowledge guided approach: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

Supplementary information

Publications

Addressing unmeasured confounding bias with a prior knowledge guided approach: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets