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
Editorial
. 2018 Jul;7(4):506-515.
doi: 10.21037/acs.2018.05.17.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of multivessel coronary disease: quo vadis? -a review of the evidences on coronary artery disease

Cristiano Spadaccio  1   2 , Umberto Benedetto  3
Affiliations
Editorial

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of multivessel coronary disease: quo vadis? -a review of the evidences on coronary artery disease

Cristiano Spadaccio et al. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Jul.

Abstract

The optimal treatment of ischemic coronary artery disease (CAD) is still controversial. A number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and several meta-analyses have been performed and are inspiring the current guidelines. However, a univocal consensus on the optimal therapeutic strategy for multivessel disease has still not been reached yet. We reviewed the current evidence on this topic, focusing on both RCT and meta-analyses. From both short and long-term studies, it emerges that in patients with multivessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with better survival, lower rates of major cardiovascular events (specifically myocardial infarction or stroke) and repeat revascularization as compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents.

Keywords: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); multivessel disease (MVD); percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

    1. Authors/Task Force members , Windecker S, Kolh P, 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 Heart J 2014;35:2541-619. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Makikallio 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. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32052-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. 10.1056/NEJMoa1610227 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Buszman PE, Buszman PP, Banasiewicz-Szkrobka I, et al. Left Main Stenting in Comparison with Surgical Revascularization: 10-Year Outcomes of the (Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting) LE MANS Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:318-27. 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.10.044 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ahn JM, Roh JH, Kim YH, et al. Randomized Trial of Stents Versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: 5-Year Outcomes of the PRECOMBAT Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2198-206. 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.033 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types