Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Published in: Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 3/2018

01-12-2018 | Review Article

Genetics, coronary artery disease, and myocardial revascularization: will novel genetic risk scores bring new answers?

Authors: Sonya Kit Hui, Louise Sun, Marc Ruel

Published in: Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery | Special Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) are options for revascularization in multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the best form of revascularization remains controversial. Results from clinical trials (FREEDOM, SYNTAX, NOBLE, EXCEL) have identified factors related to CAD severity such as diabetes and SYNTAX score as indicators that patients may have better outcomes with CABG compared to PCI. Nevertheless, the discovery of other predictors of optimal revascularization therapy is necessary to improve decision-making and personalize the treatment of multi-vessel CAD. Genome-wide association studies have identified numerous previously unknown DNA variants that increase predisposition for CAD. Recently, a composite polygenic risk score has been developed to better assess the relative contribution of multiple SNPs and quantify overall genetic risk for CAD. High polygenic risk score is associated with increased coronary events and greater benefit from statin therapy in large observational studies. This effect is independent from traditional cardiovascular risk factors. At the same time, randomized clinical trials have shown that CAD severity is a determinant of optimal revascularization treatment. It remains unknown whether polygenic risk score is robustly associated with increased CAD severity at presentation, and whether this score can be used to identify patients who will show greater benefit from revascularization with CABG or with PCI.
Literature
1.
Mancini GB, Farkouh ME, Brooks MM, et al. Medical treatment and revascularization options in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:985–95.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Gersh BJ, Stone GW, Bhatt DL. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main and multivessel coronary artery disease: do we have the evidence? Circulation. 2017;135:819–21.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Ruel M, Farkouh ME. Why NOBLE and EXCEL are consistent with each other and with previous trials. Circulation. 2017;135:822–4.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961–72.CrossRef
5.
Head SJ, Davierwala PM, Serruys PW, 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;35:2821–30.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kolh P, Windecker S, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46:517–92.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Goldenberg G, Kornowski R. Coronary Bypass Surgery versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Saga Continues. Interv Cardiol. 2012;4:653–60.CrossRef
8.
Zhao DF, Edelman JJ, Seco M, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting with and without manipulation of the ascending aorta: A network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:924–36.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Farooq V, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet. 2013;381:639–50.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Mäkikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2743–52.CrossRef
12.
Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2223–35.CrossRef
13.
Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2375–84.CrossRef
14.
Saely CH, Drexel H, Sourij H, et al. Key role of postchallenge hyperglycemia for the presence and extent of coronary atherosclerosis: an angiographic study. Atherosclerosis. 2008;199:317–22.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Halon DA, Merdler A, Flugelman MY, et al. Late-onset heart failure as a mechanism for adverse long-term outcome in diabetic patients undergoing revascularization (a 13-year report from the Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center registry). Am J Cardiol. 2000;85:1420–6.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Wu KY, Timmerman N, McPhedran R, Beanlands R, de Kemp R, Chong AY. In the presence of significant epicardial coronary disease, diabetes mellitus is further associated with reduced myocardial flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:1401.CrossRef
17.
Mehran R, Dangas GD, Kobayashi Y. et al.Short- and long-term results after multivessel stenting in diabetic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1348–54.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kornowski R, Mintz GS, Kent KM, et al. Increased restenosis in diabetes mellitus after coronary interventions is due to exaggerated intimal hyperplasia. A serial intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 1997;95:1366–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Thourani VH, Weintraub WS, Stein B, et al. Influence of diabetes mellitus on early and late outcome after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:1045–52.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lawrie GM, Morris GC Jr, Glaeser DH. Influence of diabetes mellitus on the results of coronary bypass surgery. Follow-up of 212 diabetic patients ten to 15 years after surgery. JAMA. 1986;256:2967–71.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Salomon NW, Page US, Okies JE, Stephens J, Krause AH, Bigelow JC. Diabetes mellitus and coronary artery bypass. Short-term risk and long-term prognosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1983;85:264–71.PubMed
22.
Bair TL, Muhlestein JB, May HT, et al. Surgical revascularization is associated with improved long-term outcomes compared with percutaneous stenting in most subgroups of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the Intermountain Heart Registry. Circulation. 2007;116:I226–31.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G, et al. Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2174–83.CrossRef
24.
Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, et al. Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:331–41.CrossRef
25.
Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM, 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;373:1190–7.CrossRef
26.
Taggart DP. Thomas B. Ferguson Lecture. Coronary artery bypass grafting is still the best treatment for multivessel and left main disease, but patients need to know. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:1966–75.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1128–37.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Peterson ED, Coombs LP, DeLong ER, Haan CK, Ferguson TB. Procedural volume as a marker of quality for CABG surgery. JAMA. 2004;291:195–201.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Nallamothu BK, Saint S, Hofer TP, Vijan S, Eagle KA, Bernstein SJ. Impact of patient risk on the hospital volume-outcome relationship in coronary artery bypass grafting. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:333–7.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Cram P, Rosenthal GE, Vaughan-Sarrazin MS. Cardiac revascularization in specialty and general hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1454–62.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Yau TM, Fedak PW, Weisel RD, Teng C, Ivanov J. Predictors of operative risk for coronary bypass operations in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;118:1006–13.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Fortescue EB, Kahn K, Bates DW. Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for major adverse outcomes in coronary bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88:1251–8.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Anderson HV, Shaw RE, Brindis RG, et al. A contemporary overview of percutaneous coronary interventions. The American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:1096–103.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Cavender MA, Joynt KE, Parzynski CS, et al. State mandated public reporting and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115:1494–501.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Deb S, Wijeysundera HC, Ko DT, Tsubota H, Hill S, Fremes SE. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery vs percutaneous interventions in coronary revascularization: a systematic review. JAMA. 2013;310:2086–95.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Harrington RA. Selecting revascularization strategies in patients with coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1261–3.CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
40.
41.
Shen GQ, Li L, Rao S, et al. Four SNPs on chromosome 9p21 in a South Korean population implicate a genetic locus that confers high cross-race risk for development of coronary artery disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008;28:360–5.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Dandona S, Stewart AF, Chen L, et al. Gene dosage of the common variant 9p21 predicts severity of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:479–86.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Varani E, Balducelli M, Aquilina M, et al. Single or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72:927–33.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Hoppmann P, Erl A, Türk S, et al. No association of chromosome 9p21.3 variation with clinical and angiographic outcomes after placement of drug-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:1149–55.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Mega JL, Stitziel NO, Smith JG, et al. Genetic risk, coronary heart disease events, and the clinical benefit of statin therapy: an analysis of primary and secondary prevention trials. Lancet. 2015;385:2264–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
47.
Näslund-Koch C, Nordestgaard BG, Bojesen SE. Common breast cancer risk alleles and risk assessment: a study on 35 441 individuals from the Danish general population. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:175–81.PubMed
48.
Cuzick J, Brentnall AR, Segal C, et al. Impact of a panel of 88 single nucleotide polymorphisms on the risk of breast cancer in high-risk women: Results from two randomized tamoxifen prevention trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:743–50.CrossRefPubMed
49.
50.
Natarajan P, Young R, Stitziel NO, et al. Polygenic risk score identifies subgroup with higher burden of atherosclerosis and greater relative benefit from statin therapy in the primary prevention setting. Circulation. 2017;135:2091–101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Pranavchand R, Kumar AS, Reddy BM. Reddy, Genetic determinants of clinical heterogeneity of the coronary artery disease in the population of Hyderabad, India. Hum Genomics. 2017;11:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Robinson CL, Jouni H, Kruisselbrink TM, et al. Disclosing genetic risk for coronary heart disease: effects on perceived personal control and genetic counseling satisfaction. Clin Genet. 2016;89:251–7.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Kullo IJ, Jouni H, Austin EE, et al. Incorporating a genetic risk score Into coronary heart disease risk estimates: effect on low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels (the MI-GENES Clinical Trial). Circulation. 2016;133:1181–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
55.
Paynter NP, Ridker PM, Chasman DI. Are genetic tests for atherosclerosis ready for routine clinical use? Circ Res. 2016;118:607–19.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Nelson CP, Goel A, Butterworth AS, et al. Association analyses based on false discovery rate implicate new loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet. 2017;49:1385–91.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Genetics, coronary artery disease, and myocardial revascularization: will novel genetic risk scores bring new answers?
Authors
Sonya Kit Hui
Louise Sun
Marc Ruel
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery / Issue Special Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0970-9134
Electronic ISSN: 0973-7723
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-017-0635-6

Other articles of this Special Issue 3/2018

Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 3/2018 Go to the issue

Review Article

CABG in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: indications, techniques and outcomes

Editorial

CABG versus PCI—‘evidence’ and ‘practice’ not the flip side!

Review Article

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting

Review Article

The role of stem cells in treating coronary artery disease in 2018

Review Article

Transmyocardial revascularization (TMR): current status and future directions

REVIEW ARTICLE

The radial artery in coronary surgery, 2018