Cardiac surgery versus stenting: what is better for the patient?

J. James B. Edelman*, Michael K. Wilson, Paul G. Bannon, Michael P. Vallely

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


Patterns of myocardial revascularization have changed significantly over the past decade. There has been a relative decrease of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and some patients are undergoing PCI for coronary lesions traditionally reserved for CABG. The mid- to long-term results of several trials comparing PCI with CABG have recently been published. For three-vessel disease, CABG is superior to PCI, with lower rates of major adverse cardiac events. PCI may be equivalent to CABG for three-vessel disease in the lowest disease complexity tercile (SYNTAX score <22; ∼20% of patients). This review focuses on the most recent evidence for myocardial revascularization in patients with multi-vessel and left main coronary artery disease.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)792-798
Number of pages7
JournalANZ Journal of Surgery
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2012
Externally publishedYes


  • Cardiothoracic surgery
  • Coronary artery bypass surgery
  • Percutaneous coronary intervention


Dive into the research topics of 'Cardiac surgery versus stenting: what is better for the patient?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this