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

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

doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06262.x

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 journal › Review article › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	792-798
Number of pages	7
Journal	ANZ Journal of Surgery
Volume	82
Issue number	11
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06262.x
Publication status	Published - Nov 2012
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Cardiothoracic surgery
Coronary artery bypass surgery
Percutaneous coronary intervention

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06262.x

Cite this

@article{7d2b000e94924bb6ae53bcbeab803261,

title = "Cardiac surgery versus stenting: what is better for the patient?",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "Cardiothoracic surgery, Coronary artery bypass surgery, Percutaneous coronary intervention",

author = "Edelman, {J. James B.} and Wilson, {Michael K.} and Bannon, {Paul G.} and Vallely, {Michael P.}",

year = "2012",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06262.x",

language = "English",

volume = "82",

pages = "792--798",

journal = "Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery",

issn = "1445-2197",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley",

number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cardiac surgery versus stenting

T2 - what is better for the patient?

AU - Edelman, J. James B.

AU - Wilson, Michael K.

AU - Bannon, Paul G.

AU - Vallely, Michael P.

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Cardiothoracic surgery

KW - Coronary artery bypass surgery

KW - Percutaneous coronary intervention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84868528464&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06262.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06262.x

M3 - Review article

C2 - 22989330

AN - SCOPUS:84868528464

VL - 82

SP - 792

EP - 798

JO - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery

JF - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery

SN - 1445-2197

IS - 11

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this