This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Radford, M. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Radford, M. J. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Catheter-based coronary and valvular interventions: other Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents CV surgery: coronary artery disease Chronic ischemic heart disease

(Circulation. 2006;114:1229-1231.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention "Dominates" Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for High-Risk Patients

Good News for Patients, a Challenge for Healthcare Planners

Martha J. Radford, MD

From the New York University School of Medicine, New York.

Correspondence to Martha J. Radford, Professor of Medicine (Cardiology), New York University, School of Medicine, 550 First Ave, GBH C-120, New York, NY 10016. E-mail martha.radford@nyumc.org

Key Words: Editorials • coronary disease • cost-benefit analysis

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

In this issue of Circulation, Stroupe and colleagues present a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME) trial¹ that challenges physicians, hospitals, and healthcare planners to address how to best evaluate emerging, evolving, and mature technologies for their safety, efficacy, and impact on the health of our society.

Article p 1251

The AWESOME trial² randomized patients with ischemic symptoms refractory to medical therapy who were at high risk for adverse events after either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to receive one of these as the initial revascularization strategy. These patients, encountered with increasing frequency in clinical practice, need revascularization to treat significant ischemia, but the revascularization procedure itself carries significant risk for them. "First, do no harm" is particularly difficult to apply to these patients because both the disease and the therapy may cause harm. The risk and benefit of the 2 available revascularization modalities for these patients, PCI and CABG, are particularly difficult to balance, to explain to patients, and to select with assurance that the best choice is made for each patient.

The randomized trial showed that mortality at 1 to 3 years was no different in the 2 study arms,² but patients in the PCI strategy arm experienced unstable angina and repeat revascularization more frequently. Despite this difference in what might be a quality-of-life concern, health-related quality of life was no different in the 2 arms.³ Similarly, the Trial of Invasive Versus Medical Therapy in the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. M. Howard-Alpe, J. de Bono, L. Hudsmith, W. P. Orr, P. Foex, and J. W. Sear Coronary artery stents and non-cardiac surgery Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2007; 98(5): 560 - 574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]