Coronary revascularization and TAVI: before, during, after or never?

Aortic valve stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist in elderly patients selected for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Therapeutic strategies to manage concomitant obstructive CAD are therefore an important consideration in the overall management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting is the treatment of choice for low and intermediate risk patients with symptomatic severe AS and concomitant obstructive CAD. However, TAVI and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are viable alternative options for high-risk or inoperable patients presenting with symptomatic severe AS. PCI has been shown to be feasible and safe in selected high-risk or inoperable patients with symptomatic severe AS. However, the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure has been a subject of debate. The most frequent approch is staged PCI typically performed a few weeks prior to TAVI. However, concomitant PCI has also been shown to be a feasible and safe approach, particularly in patients with a low level of CAD complexity and an absence of severe renal impairment. Conversely, staged PCI should be considered in patients with higher degrees of CAD complexity, particularly in the presence of severe renal impairment. The aim of the present review is to discuss the safety and feasibility of performing PCI in elderly patients with severe AS and the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure using the most up-to-date available evidence.

Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.

The choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is determined by the clinical context and treatment strategy. Oral antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention include the cyclo-oxygenase-1 inhibitor aspirin, and the ADP dependent P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Aspirin constitutes the cornerstone in secondary prevention of CAD and is complemented by clopidogrel in patients with stable CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel and ticagrelor improve net clinical outcome by reducing ischaemic adverse events at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel appears particularly effective among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel, and offered a greater net clinical benefit among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Ticagrelor is associated with reduced mortality without increasing the rate of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Dual antiplatelet therapy should be continued for a minimum of 1 year among patients with acute coronary syndrome irrespective of stent type; among patients with stable CAD treated with new generation drug-eluting stents, available data suggest no benefit to prolong antiplatelet treatment beyond 6 months.

Extent of coronary artery disease and outcomes after ticagrelor administration in patients with an acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial.

BACKGROUND Extensive coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with higher risk. In this substudy of the PLATO trial, we examined the effects of randomized treatment on outcome events and safety in relation to the extent of CAD. METHODS Patients were classified according to presence of extensive CAD (defined as 3-vessel disease, left main disease, or prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery). The trial's primary and secondary end points were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS Among 15,388 study patients for whom the extent of CAD was known, 4,646 (30%) had extensive CAD. Patients with extensive CAD had more high-risk characteristics and experienced more clinical events during follow-up. They were less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (58% vs 79%, P < .001) but more likely to undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery (16% vs 2%, P < .001). Ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, reduced the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with extensive CAD (14.9% vs 17.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.85 [0.73-0.98]) similar to its reduction in those without extensive CAD (6.8% vs 8.0%, HR 0.85 [0.74-0.98], Pinteraction = .99). Major bleeding was similar with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel among patients with (25.7% vs 25.5%, HR 1.02 [0.90-1.15]) and without (7.3% vs 6.4%, HR 1.14 [0.98-1.33], Pinteraction = .24) extensive CAD. CONCLUSIONS Patients with extensive CAD have higher rates of recurrent cardiovascular events and bleeding. Ticagrelor reduced ischemic events to a similar extent both in patients with and without extensive CAD, with bleeding rates similar to clopidogrel.

Sex-related differences in access to care among patients with premature acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND Access to care may be implicated in disparities between men and women in death after acute coronary syndrome, especially among younger adults. We aimed to assess sex-related differences in access to care among patients with premature acute coronary syndrome and to identify clinical and gender-related determinants of access to care. METHODS We studied 1123 patients (18-55 yr) admitted to hospital for acute coronary syndrome and enrolled in the GENESIS-PRAXY cohort study. Outcome measures were door-to-electrocardiography, door-to-needle and door-to-balloon times, as well as proportions of patients undergoing cardiac catheterization, reperfusion or nonprimary percutaneous coronary intervention. We performed univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify clinical and gender-related determinants of timely procedures and use of invasive procedures. RESULTS Women were less likely than men to receive care within benchmark times for electrocardiography (≤ 10 min: 29% v. 38%, p = 0.02) or fibrinolysis (≤ 30 min: 32% v. 57%, p = 0.01). Women with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) were less likely than men to undergo reperfusion therapy (primary percutaneous coronary intervention or fibrinolysis) (83% v. 91%, p = 0.01), and women with non-ST-segment elevation MI or unstable angina were less likely to undergo nonprimary percutaneous coronary intervention (48% v. 66%, p < 0.001). Clinical determinants of poorer access to care included anxiety, increased number of risk factors and absence of chest pain. Gender-related determinants included feminine traits of personality and responsibility for housework. INTERPRETATION Among younger adults with acute coronary syndrome, women and men had different access to care. Moreover, fewer than half of men and women with ST-segment elevation MI received timely primary coronary intervention. Our results also highlight that men and women with no chest pain and those with anxiety, several traditional risk factors and feminine personality traits were at particularly increased risk of poorer access to care.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Clinical impact of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND The risk factors and clinical sequelae of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in the current era of drug-eluting stents, prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, and potent P2Y12 inhibitors are not well established. We determined the frequency, predictors, and clinical impact of GIB after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in a contemporary cohort of consecutive patients treated with unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS Between 2009 and 2012, all consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively included in the Bern PCI Registry. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) GIB and cardiovascular outcomes were recorded within 1 year of follow-up. Among 6212 patients, 84.1% received new-generation drug-eluting stents and 19.5% received prasugrel. At 1 year, GIB had occurred in 65 patients (1.04%); 70.8% of all events and 84.4% of BARC ≥3B events were recorded >30 days after PCI. The majority of events (64.4%) were related to upper GIB with a more delayed time course compared with lower GIB. Increasing age, previous GIB, history of malignancy, smoking, and triple antithrombotic therapy (ie, oral anticoagulation plus dual antiplatelet therapy) were independent predictors of GIB in multivariable analysis. GIB was associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-6.92; P=0.001) and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-7.07; P<0.001) and was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality during 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Among unselected patients undergoing PCI, GIB has a profound effect on prognosis. Triple antithrombotic therapy emerged as the single drug-related predictor of GIB in addition to patient-related risk factors within 1 year of PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02241291.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Background Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. Methods We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. Results The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). Conclusions In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627 .).

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in a pre-specified subgroup of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS The BIOSCIENCE trial is an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial (NCT01443104). Randomisation was stratified according to the presence or absence of STEMI. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure (TLF), is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation within 12 months. Between February 2012 and May 2013, 407 STEMI patients were randomly assigned to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES. At one year, TLF occurred in seven (3.4%) patients treated with BP-SES and 17 (8.8%) patients treated with DP-EES (RR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.91, p=0.024). Rates of cardiac death were 1.5% in the BP-SES group and 4.7% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.08-1.14, p=0.062); rates of target vessel myocardial infarction were 0.5% and 2.6% (RR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.02-1.57, p=0.082), respectively, and rates of clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation were 1.5% in the BP-SES group versus 2.1% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.16-3.10, p=0.631). There was no difference in the risk of definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS In this pre-specified subgroup analysis, BP-SES was associated with a lower rate of target lesion failure at one year compared to DP-EES in STEMI patients. These findings require confirmation in a dedicated STEMI trial.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of New-Generation Versus Early-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents According to Complexity of Coronary Artery Disease: A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6,081 Patients.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the 2-year safety and effectiveness of new- versus early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) according to the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) as assessed by the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score. BACKGROUND New-generation DES are considered the standard-of-care in patients with CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, there are few data investigating the effects of new- over early-generation DES according to the anatomic complexity of CAD. METHODS Patient-level data from 4 contemporary, all-comers trials were pooled. The primary device-oriented clinical endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (TLR). The principal effectiveness and safety endpoints were TLR and definite stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated at 2 years for overall comparisons, as well as stratified for patients with lower (SYNTAX score ≤11) and higher complexity (SYNTAX score >11). RESULTS A total of 6,081 patients were included in the study. New-generation DES (n = 4,554) compared with early-generation DES (n = 1,527) reduced the primary endpoint (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.63 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) without interaction (p = 0.219) between patients with lower (HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.64 to 1.16]; p = 0.322) versus higher CAD complexity (HR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.54 to 0.85]; p = 0.001). In patients with SYNTAX score >11, new-generation DES significantly reduced TLR (HR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51]; p < 0.001) and definite ST (HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.15 to 0.55]; p < 0.001) to a greater extent than in the low-complexity group (TLR pint = 0.059; ST pint = 0.013). New-generation DES decreased the risk of cardiac mortality in patients with SYNTAX score >11 (HR: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.27 to 0.76]; p = 0.003) but not in patients with SYNTAX score ≤11 (pint = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS New-generation DES improve clinical outcomes compared with early-generation DES, with a greater safety and effectiveness in patients with SYNTAX score >11.

Stable coronary artery disease: revascularisation and invasive strategies

Stable coronary artery disease is the most common clinical manifestation of ischaemic heart disease and a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Myocardial revascularisation is a mainstay in the treatment of symptomatic patients or those with ischaemia-producing coronary lesions, and reduces ischaemia to a greater extent than medical treatment. Documentation of ischaemia and plaque burden is fundamental in the risk stratification of patients with stable coronary artery disease, and several invasive and non-invasive techniques are available (eg, fractional flow reserve or intravascular ultrasound) or being validated (eg, instantaneous wave-free ratio and optical coherence tomography). The use of new-generation drug-eluting stents and arterial conduits greatly improve clinical outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). PCI is feasible, safe, and effective in many patients with stable coronary artery disease who remain symptomatic despite medical treatment. In patients with multivessel and left main coronary artery disease, the decision between PCI or CABG is guided by the local Heart Team (team of different cardiovascular specialists, including non-invasive and invasive cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons), who carefully judge the possible benefits and risks inherent to PCI and CABG. In specific subsets, such as patients with diabetes and advanced, multivessel coronary artery disease, CABG remains the standard of care in view of improved protection against recurrent ischaemic adverse events.

Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial

BACKGROUND Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents. However, data comparing long-term safety and efficacy of zotarolimus- (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are limited. RESOLUTE all-comers (Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial compared these 2 stents and has shown that ZES was noninferior to EES at 12-month for the primary end point of target lesion failure. We report the secondary clinical outcomes at the final 5-year follow-up of this trial. METHODS AND RESULTS RESOLUTE all-comer clinical study is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria. Patients (n=2292) were randomly assigned to treatment with either ZES (n=1140) or EES (n=1152). Patient-oriented composite end point (combination of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularizations), device-oriented composite end point (combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (combination of all-cause death, all myocardial infarction, emergent coronary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year follow-up. The 2 groups were well-matched at baseline. Five-year follow-up data were available for 98% patients. There were no differences in patient-oriented composite end point (ZES 35.3% versus EES 32.0%, P=0.11), device-oriented composite end point (ZES 17.0% versus EES 16.2%, P=0.61), major adverse cardiac events (ZES 21.9% versus EES 21.6%, P=0.88), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ZES 2.8% versus EES 1.8%, P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00617084.

Republished: Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease

The choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is determined by the clinical context and treatment strategy. Oral antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention include the cyclo-oxygenase-1 inhibitor aspirin, and the ADP dependent P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Aspirin constitutes the cornerstone in secondary prevention of CAD and is complemented by clopidogrel in patients with stable CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel and ticagrelor improve net clinical outcome by reducing ischaemic adverse events at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel appears particularly effective among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel, and offered a greater net clinical benefit among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Ticagrelor is associated with reduced mortality without increasing the rate of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Dual antiplatelet therapy should be continued for a minimum of 1 year among patients with acute coronary syndrome irrespective of stent type; among patients with stable CAD treated with new generation drug-eluting stents, available data suggest no benefit to prolong antiplatelet treatment beyond 6 months.

Efficacy and safety of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent: the EVOLVE II Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND Drug eluting stents with durable polymers may be associated with hypersensitivity, delayed healing, and incomplete endothelialization, which may contribute to late/very late stent thrombosis and the need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy. Bioabsorbable polymers may facilitate stent healing, thus enhancing clinical safety. The SYNERGY stent is a thin-strut, platinum chromium metal alloy platform with an ultrathin bioabsorbable Poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) abluminal everolimus-eluting polymer. We performed a multicenter, randomized controlled trial for regulatory approval to determine noninferiority of the SYNERGY stent to the durable polymer PROMUS Element Plus everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients (n=1684) scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable coronary artery disease were randomized to receive either the SYNERGY stent or the PROMUS Element Plus stent. The primary end point of 12-month target lesion failure was observed in 6.7% of SYNERGY and 6.5% PROMUS Element Plus treated subjects by intention-to-treat (P=0.83 for difference; P=0.0005 for noninferiority), and 6.4% in both the groups by per-protocol analysis (P=0.0003 for noninferiority). Clinically indicated revascularization of the target lesion or definite/probable stent thrombosis were observed in 2.6% versus 1.7% (P=0.21) and 0.4% versus 0.6% (P=0.50) of SYNERGY versus PROMUS Element Plus-treated subjects, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial, the SYNERGY bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the PROMUS Element Plus everolimus-eluting stent with respect to 1-year target lesion failure. These data support the relative safety and efficacy of SYNERGY in a broad range of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01665053.

Validity of SYNTAX score II for risk stratification of percutaneous coronary interventions: A patient-level pooled analysis of 5,433 patients enrolled in contemporary coronary stent trials.

OBJECTIVES To assess the clinical profile and long-term mortality in SYNTAX score II based strata of patients who received percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in contemporary randomized trials. BACKGROUND The SYNTAX score II was developed in the randomized, all-comers' SYNTAX trial population and is composed by 2 anatomical and 6 clinical variables. The interaction of these variables with the treatment provides individual long-term mortality predictions if a patient undergoes coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or PCI. METHODS Patient-level (n=5433) data from 7 contemporary coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) trials were pooled. The mortality for CABG or PCI was estimated for every patient. The difference in mortality estimates for these two revascularization strategies was used to divide the patients into three groups of theoretical treatment recommendations: PCI, CABG or PCI/CABG (the latter means equipoise between CABG and PCI for long term mortality). RESULTS The three groups had marked differences in their baseline characteristics. According to the predicted risk differences, 5115 patients could be treated either by PCI or CABG, 271 should be treated only by PCI and, rarely, CABG (n=47) was recommended. At 3-year follow-up, according to the SYNTAX score II recommendations, patients recommended for CABG had higher mortality compared to the PCI and PCI/CABG groups (17.4%; 6.1% and 5.3%, respectively; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS The SYNTAX score II demonstrated capability to help in stratifying PCI procedures.