Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2005 Jan 25;2005(1):CD004588.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004588.pub3.

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for people with stable angina or acute coronary syndromes

A Bakhai, R A Hill, Y Dundar, R Dickson, T Walley
Meta-Analysis

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for people with stable angina or acute coronary syndromes

A Bakhai et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) replaces obstructed vessels with ones from other parts of the body. Alternatively, obstructions are remodelled using catheter-based techniques such as percutaneous coronary angioplasty with the use of stents. Though less invasive, stenting techniques are limited by the re-narrowing of treated vessels (restenosis). We examined evidence on cardiac-related outcomes occurring after CABG or stenting, with implications for resource use, resource allocation and informing patient choice.

Objectives: To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on benefit of stents or CABG in reducing cardiac events in people with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Search strategy: CENTRAL (Issue 2 2004), EMBASE (1990 to 2004), MEDLINE (1990 to 2004) and handsearching to July 2004.

Selection criteria: Only RCTs comparing stents used with PTCA with CABG were included. Participants were adults with stable angina or ACS and unstable angina and had either single or multiple vessel disease. Published and unpublished sources were considered.

Data collection and analysis: Outcomes included composite event rate (major adverse cardiac event, event free survival), death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), repeat revascularisation and binary restenosis as well as information on design and baseline characteristics. Quality assessment was completed independently. Meta-analyses are presented as odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Heterogeneity between trials was assessed.

Main results: Nine studies (3519 patients) were included. Four RCTs included patients with multiple vessel disease, five focused on single vessel disease. Four studies reported beyond 1 year. No statistical differences were observed between CABG and stenting for meta-analysis of mortality or AMI, but there was heterogeneity. Composite cardiac event and revascularisation rates were lower for CABG than for stents. Odds ratios resulting from meta-analysis of event rate data at 1 year were, odds ratio 0.43 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.54) and at 3 years, odds ratio 0.37 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.48). Odds ratios for revascularisation at 1 year were, odds ratio 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.25) and at 3 years, odds ratio 0.09 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.34). Binary restenosis at 6 months (single vessel trials) favoured CABG, odds ratio 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.51).

Authors' conclusions: CABG is associated with reduced rates of major adverse cardiac events, mostly driven by reduced repeat revascularisation. However, the RCT data are limited by follow-up, unrepresentative samples and rapid development of both surgical techniques and stenting. Research on real-world patient population or patient level data meta-analyses may identify risk factors and groupings who may benefit most from one strategy over the other.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ameet Bakhai has worked on projects involving Abbott Vascular Devices, Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co. USA. Through his appointment with the Harvard Clinical Research Institute (Boston, USA), he was a member of an academic department which is involved in collaborations with Boston Scientific and Guidant Corporation.

No further relevant competing interests exist.

Figures

1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Event Rate, Outcome 2 Event Rate: 6 months.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Event Rate, Outcome 3 Event Rate: 12 months.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Event Rate, Outcome 4 Event Rate: 2 years.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Event Rate, Outcome 5 Event Rate: 2.5 to 3.0 years.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Event Rate, Outcome 6 Event Rate: 4 years.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mortality, Outcome 1 Mortality: up to 36 days.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mortality, Outcome 2 Mortality: 6 months.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mortality, Outcome 3 Mortality: 12 months.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mortality, Outcome 4 Mortality: 1.5 to 2 years.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mortality, Outcome 5 Mortality: 2.4 to 3.0 years.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mortality, Outcome 6 Mortality: 4 years.
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mortality, Outcome 7 Mortality: 12 months ‐ Random Effects Model.
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mortality, Outcome 8 Mortality: 1.5 to 2 years ‐ Random Effects Model.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Myocardial Infarction: Any Reported, Outcome 1 Myocardial infarction ‐ any up to 36 days.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Myocardial Infarction: Any Reported, Outcome 2 Myocardial infarction ‐ any: 6 months.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Myocardial Infarction: Any Reported, Outcome 3 Myocardial infarction ‐ any: 12 months.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Myocardial Infarction: Any Reported, Outcome 4 Myocardial infarction ‐ any: 2.0 years.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Myocardial Infarction: Any Reported, Outcome 5 Myocardial infarction ‐ any: Typically 2.5 to 3.0 years.
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Myocardial Infarction: Any Reported, Outcome 6 Myocardial infarction ‐ any: 4 years.
3.7
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 Myocardial Infarction: Any Reported, Outcome 7 Myocardial infarction ‐ any: 12 months ‐ Random Effects Model.
3.8
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 Myocardial Infarction: Any Reported, Outcome 8 Myocardial infarction ‐ any: 2.0 years ‐ Random Effects Model.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Revascularisation: Any Reported, Outcome 1 Any Revascularisation Procedure: up to 36 days.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Revascularisation: Any Reported, Outcome 2 Any Revascularisation Procedure: 6 months.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Revascularisation: Any Reported, Outcome 3 Any Revascularisation Procedure: 12 months.
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Revascularisation: Any Reported, Outcome 4 Any Revascularisation Procedure: 2.0 years.
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Revascularisation: Any Reported, Outcome 5 Any Revascularisation Procedure: 2.5 to 3.0 years.
4.6
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 Revascularisation: Any Reported, Outcome 6 Any Revascularisation Procedure: 4 years.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Binary Restenosis Rate, Outcome 1 Binary Restenosis Rate: 6 months.
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Binary Restenosis Rate, Outcome 2 Binary Restenosis Rate: 6 months ‐ Random Effects Model.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004588.pub2

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

ARTS {published data only}
    1. Abizaid A, Costa MA, Centemero M, Abizaid AS, Legrand VM, Limet RV et al (Group ARTS). Clinical and economic impact of diabetes mellitus on percutaneous and surgical treatment of multivessel coronary disease patients: insights from the Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study (ARTS) trial. Circulation 2001;104(5):533‐8. - PubMed
    1. Anonymous. Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS). Indian Heart Journal 2001;53(2):239. - PubMed
    1. Ekstein S, Elami A, Merin G, Gotsman MS, Lotan C. Balloon angioplasty versus bypass grafting in the era of coronary stenting. Israel Medical Association Journal 2002;4(8):583‐9. - PubMed
    1. Farquhar D. Bypass surgery or stenting for multivessel coronary artery disease?. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2001;164(12):1742. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gruberg L, Milo S, Ben TM, Lotan C, Merin G, Braun S, et al. Comparison of bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease: results from the ARTS trial in Israel. Israel Medical Association Journal 2003;5(8):539‐42. - PubMed
Cisowski {published data only}
    1. Cisowski M, Drzewiecki J, Drzewiecka‐Gerber A, Jaklik A, Kruczak W, Szczeklik M, et al. Primary stenting versus MIDCAB: preliminary report‐comparision of two methods of revascularization in single left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2002;74(4):1334‐9. - PubMed
Diegeler {published data only}
    1. Diegeler A, Spyrantis N, Matin M, Falk V, Hambrecht R, Autschbach R, et al. The revival of surgical treatment for isolated proximal high grade LAD lesions by minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2000;17(5):501‐4. - PubMed
    1. Diegeler A, Thiele H, Falk V, Hambrecht R, Spyrantis N, Sick P, et al. Comparison of stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;347(8):561‐6. - PubMed
Drenth {published data only}
    1. Drenth DJ, Veeger NJ, Grandjean JG, Mariani MA, Boven AJ, Boonstra PW. Isolated high‐grade lesion of the proximal LAD: a stent or off‐pump LIMA?. European Journal of Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery 2004;25(4):567‐71. - PubMed
    1. Drenth DJ, Veeger NJ, Winter JB, Grandjean JG, Mariani MA, Boven van AJ, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing stenting with off‐pump coronary surgery for high‐grade stenosis in the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery: three‐year follow‐up. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2002;40(11):1955‐60. - PubMed
    1. Drenth DJ, Winter JB, Veeger NJ, Monnink SH, Boven AJ, Grandjean JG, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting in isolated high‐grade stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery: six months' angiographic and clinical follow‐up of a prospective randomized study. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2002;124(1):130‐5. - PubMed
ERACI II {published data only}
    1. Brennan FJ, Palacios IF, Rodriguez A. A randomized trial of multivessel stent versus coronary bypass. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2001;38(1):286‐7. - PubMed
    1. Rodriguez A. Argentine randomized study: coronary angioplasty with stenting vs coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II): 30‐day and long‐term follow‐up results. American Heart Journal 2000;139(2 (Pt 1)):362‐3. - PubMed
    1. Rodriguez A, Bernardi V, Navia J. Erratum: Argentine randomized study: Coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple‐vessel disease (ERACII): 30‐Day and one‐year follow‐up results. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2001;37(3):973. - PubMed
    1. Rodriguez A, Bernardi V, Navia J, Baldi J, Grinfeld L, Martinez J, et al. Argentine randomized study: Coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple‐vessel disease (ERACI II): 30‐day and one‐year follow‐up results. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2001;37(1):51‐8. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
    1. Rodriguez A, Rodriguez AM, Baldi J, Navia J, Delacasa A, Vogel D, et al. Coronary stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease and significant proximal LAD stenosis: results from the ERACI II study. Heart 2003;89(2):184‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Grip {published data only}
    1. Grip L, Wahrborg P, Odell A, Albertsson P, Berglin E, Brandrup‐Wognesen G, et al. Coronary artery bypass beating heart surgery with LIMA graft, versus coronary angioplasty with stent for patients with single left anterior descending artery ‐ a pilot study. European Heart Journal 2001;22 (Suppl):597.
OCTOSTENT {published data only}
    1. Eefting F, Nathoe H, van DD, Jansen E, Lahpor J, Stella P, et al. Randomized comparison between stenting and off‐pump bypass surgery in patients referred for angioplasty. Circulation 2003;108(23):2870‐6. - PubMed
    1. Brand, Nierich AP, Eefting FD, Buskens E, Nathoe HM, Jansen EW. The Octopus Study: rationale and design of two randomized trials on medical effectiveness, safety, and cost‐effectiveness of bypass surgery on the beating heart. Controlled Clinical Trials 2000;21(6):595‐609. - PubMed
SIMA {published data only}
    1. Goy J‐J, Kaufmann U, Goy‐Eggenberger D, Garachemani A, Hurni M, Carrel T, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing stenting to internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis: The SIMA trial. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2000;75(11):1116‐23. - PubMed
SOS {published data only}
    1. SoS Investigators. Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial.[comment]. Lancet 2002;360(9338):965‐70. - PubMed
    1. Stables RH. Design of the 'Stent or Surgery' trial (SoS): a randomized controlled trial to compare coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and primary stent implantation in patients with multi‐vessel coronary artery disease. Seminars in Interventional Cardiology 1999;4(4):201‐7. - PubMed
    1. Zhang Z, Mahoney EM, Stables RH, Booth J, Nugara F, Spertus JA, et al. Disease‐specific health status after stent‐assisted percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery: one‐year results from the Stent or Surgery trial. Circulation 2003;108(14):1694‐700. - PubMed
    1. Zhang Z, Weintraub WS, Mahoney EM, Spertus JA, Booth J, Nugara F, et al. Relative benefit of coronary artery bypass grafting versus stent‐assisted percutaneous coronary intervention for angina pectoris and multivessel coronary disease in women versus men (one‐year results from the Stent or Surgery trial). American Journal of Cardiology 2004;93(4):404‐9. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

AMIST {published data only}
    1. Angelini G. AMIST A multicenter trial of minimally invasive bypass grafting versus angioplasty +/‐ stenting for single vessel disease of the left anterior descending coronary vessel. http://www.cardiosource.com/ 1999.
    1. Reeves BC, Angelini GD, Bryan AJ, Taylor FC, Cripps T, Spyt TJ, et al. A multi‐centre randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting for proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Health Technology Assessment 2004;8(16):1‐43. - PubMed
AWESOME {published data only}
    1. Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J, Henderson W, Grover F, Sedlis S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: A multicenter, randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2001;38(1):143‐9. - PubMed
Berger 2001 {published data only}
    1. Berger PB, Velianou JL, Aslanidou VH, Feit F, Jacobs AK, Faxon DP, et al. the BARI, I. Survival following coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery in anatomic subsets in which coronary artery bypass surgery improves survival compared with medical therapy. Results from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2001;38(5):1440‐9. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Biondi‐Zoccai 2003 {published data only}
    1. Biondi‐Zoccai GG, Abbate A, Agostoni P, Parisi Q, Turri M, Anselmi M, et al. Stenting versus surgical bypass grafting for coronary artery disease: systematic overview and meta‐analysis of randomized trials. Italian Heart Journal: Official Journal of the Italian Federation of Cardiology 2003;4(4):271‐80. - PubMed
Fischman 1994 {published data only}
    1. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, Schatz RA, Savage MP, Penn I, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary‐stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331(8):496‐501. - PubMed
Iakovou 2002 {published data only}
    1. Iakovou I, Dangas G, Mehran R, Lansky AJ, Stamou SC, Pfister AJ, et al. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) versus coronary artery stenting for elective revascularization of the left anterior descending artery. American Journal of Cardiology 2002;90(8):885‐7. - PubMed
Kapelak 1998 {published data only}
    1. Kapelak B, Sadowski J, Pfitzner R, Garlicki M, Zmudka K, Pietrzak I, et al. Coronary bypass grafting after failed percutaneous angioplasty (PTCA). Przeglad Lekarski 1998;55(11):591‐5. - PubMed
Kim 2000 {published data only}
    1. Kim SW, Hong MK, Lee CW, Kim JJ, Park SW, Park SJ. Multivessel coronary stenting versus bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and normal left ventricular function: immediate and 2‐year long‐term follow‐up. American Heart Journal 2000;139(4):638‐42. - PubMed
Mathew 2000 {published data only}
    1. Mathew V, Clavell AL, Lennon RJ, Grill DE, Holmes DR, Jr. Percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery: changes in patient characteristics and outcome during two decades. American Journal of Medicine 2000;108(2):127‐35. - PubMed
Murtaza 2001 {published data only}
    1. Murtaza M, Singh M, Dharmarajan L. Coronary‐artery bypass surgery versus stenting for multivessel disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;345(22):1642‐3. - PubMed
Pohl 2002 {published data only}
    1. Pohl T, Kupatt C, Giehrl W, Raake S, Paul H, Reichenspurner P, et al. Retroinfusion‐supported stenting in high‐risk patients for interventional treatment and bypass surgery: results of the prospective randomized myoprotect study. American Journal of Cardiology 2002;90((Suppl 6A)):94H. - PubMed
Ryan 2001 {published data only}
    1. Ryan TJ. Present‐day PTCR versus CABG: a randomized comparison with a different focus and a new result. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2001;37(1):59‐62. - PubMed
Serruys 1994 {published data only}
    1. Serruys PW, de JP, Kiemeneij F, Macaya C, Rutsch W, Heyndrickx G, et al. A comparison of balloon‐expandable‐stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331(8):489‐95. - PubMed
Shirai 2004 {published data only}
    1. Shirai K, Lansky AJ, Mehran R, Dangas GD, Costantini CO, Fahy M, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting versus stenting for patients with proximal left anterior descending coronary artery disease. American Journal of Cardiology 2004;93(8):959‐62. - PubMed
Taggart 2001 {published data only}
    1. Taggart DP, Banning A, Channon K. Coronary‐artery bypass surgery versus stenting for multivessel disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;345(22):1641‐2. - PubMed
Weintraub 1997 {published data only}
    1. Weintraub WS, Jones EL, Morris DC, King SB, III, Guyton RA, Craver JM. Outcome of reoperative coronary bypass surgery versus coronary angioplasty after previous bypass surgery. Circulation 1997;95(4):868‐77. - PubMed
Yock 2000 {published data only}
    1. Yock CA, Boothroyd DB, Owens DK, Winston C, Hlatky MA. Projected long‐term costs of coronary stenting in multivessel coronary disease based on the experience of the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). American Heart Journal 2000;140(4):556‐64. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

CARDia {published and unpublished data}
    1. CARDia Trial [webpage]. http://www.cardia.org.uk.
    1. Kapur A, Malik I, Bagger J, Anderson J, Beatt K, Hall R, Investigators. ftC. eHEART: www.heartjnl.com [The Coronary Artery Revascularisation in Diabetes (CARDia) trial: a prospective, randomised comparison of optimal coronary angioplasty with use of stenting and abciximab recommended versus up to date coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus suitable for either intervention]. Heart 2003;89(5):550.
FREEDOM {unpublished data only}
    1. MSSM. Valentin Fuster MD, PhD to Lead New $25 Million NIH Study. http://www.mssm.edu/cvi/clinical_services.shtml (accessed 22/04/2004). The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and The Marie‐Josse and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health 2004.
SYNTAX {unpublished data only}
    1. SYNTAX trial. EuroPCR 2004, Paris Course on Revascularization, Paris, 24‐27 May 2004. http://www.europcr.com/ 2004.

Additional references

Bakhai 2000
    1. Bakhai A, Stable RH, Prasad S, Sigwart U. Trials comparing coronary artery bypass greafting with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and primary stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Current Opinion in Cardiology 2000;15(6):388‐94. - PubMed
Clark 2004
    1. Clark MA, Bakhai A, Lacey M, Pelletier E, Cohen DJ. Clinical and economic outcomes of percutaneous coromary interventions in the elderly: an analysis of medicare claims data. Circulation 2004;110(3):259‐64. - PubMed
Dundar 2004
    1. Dundar Y, Hill RA, Bakhai A, Dickson R, Walley T. Angioplasty and stents in coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal 2004;38(4):200‐10. - PubMed
Gunn 2003
    1. Gunn J, Crossman D, Grech ED, Cumberland D. New developments in percutaneous coronary intervention. BMJ 2003;327(7407):150‐3. - PMC - PubMed
Heart CRG
    1. Brunner E, Burke M, Cleland J, Conti A, Dans A, Ebrahim S, et al. Heart Group. The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 1.
Hill 2004
    1. Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A, Dickson R, Dundar Y, Haycox A, et al. Coronary artery stents and appraisal of drug‐eluting sents: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 2004;8(35):1‐256. - PubMed
Meads 2000
    1. Meads C, Cummins C, Jolly K, Stevens A, Burls A, Hyde C. Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2000;4(23):1‐153. - PubMed
Pell 2001
    1. Pell JP, Walsh D, Norrie J, Berg G, Colquhoun AD, Davidson K, et al. Outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in the stent era: a prospective study of all 9890 consecutive patients operated on in Scotland over a two year period. Heart 2001;85(6):662‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Schulz 1995
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995;273:408‐12. - PubMed
Serruys 2001
    1. Serruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, Jatene A, Bonnier H, Schonberger J, et al. Comparison of coronary‐artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. The Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;344(15):1117‐24. - PubMed
Srinivas 2002
    1. Srinivas VS, Brooks MM, Detre KM, King SB, III, Jacobs AK, Johnston J, et al. Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Balloon Angioplasty for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Comparison of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry and the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Study. Circulation 2002;106(13):1627‐33. - PubMed
Villanueva 2004
    1. Villanueva EV, Wasiak J, Petherick ES. Percutaneous transluminal rotational atherectomy for coronary artery disease (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 4. - PubMed