Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous intervention in coronary revascularization: a historical perspective and review

Clicks: 335
ID: 6771
2015
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #33 of 242 articles by views in research reports in clinical cardiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 242 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous intervention in coronary revascularization: a historical perspective and review Sonya N Burgess,1 John J Edmond,2 Craig P Juergens,1 John K French11Department of Cardiology, Liverpool Hospital and South Western Sydney Clinical School, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2Department of Cardiology, Dunedin Public Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand Background: Coronary artery bypass graft surgery is arguably the most intensively studied surgical procedure, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been subjected to more randomized clinical trials than any other interventional procedure. Changes seen in revascularization techniques have been numerous. The rapid evolution of evidence-based revascularization procedures has occurred as a result of many pivotal large randomized clinical trials. Objective: This review compares and contrasts outcomes from two coronary revascularization techniques, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and PCI, with particular reference to the landmark trials that inform practice guidelines. Methods: We undertook a comprehensive review of published literature addressing trials in this field performed to address current knowledge both in the predrug-eluting stent and postdrug-eluting stent era. Results and discussion: Surgical and percutaneous revascularization strategies have different strengths and weaknesses, and neither strategy is superior in all patients, clinical presentations, or anatomical subgroups. Current data support the use of percutaneous intervention in ST elevation myocardial infarction and in single-vessel disease. In noncomplex multivessel disease and isolated left main stem PCI, the data support non-inferiority of PCI compared to CABG as reflected in the 2014 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Landmark revascularization trials of multivessel disease comparing CABG to PCI found no survival benefit to CABG over PCI, except in patients with complex disease. In these trials, revascularization drove differences in primary endpoints and in all but the patients with low Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac surgery score, rates of revascularization were significantly lower with CABG. The new 2014 European Society of Cardiology guidelines also reflect this. Conclusion: The field of coronary revascularization is complex and constantly evolving. The best revascularization strategy for an individual patient must take into account clinical presentation, comorbidities, the extent and complexity of the coronary artery disease, and data from trials reflecting contemporary practice.Keywords: CABG, PCI, DES, SYNTAX, LMS, MACE, RCT
Reference Key
sonya2015coronaryresearch Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sonya N Burgess;John J Edmond;Craig P Juergens;John K French and
Journal research reports in clinical cardiology
Year 2015
DOI
10.2147/RRCC.S73660
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.