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 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 Hlatky, M. A. Articles by Bravata, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hlatky, M. A. Articles by Bravata, D. M. Related Collections Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents CV surgery: coronary artery disease

(Circulation. 2008;118:325-327.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Stents or Surgery?

New Data on the Comparative Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Mark A. Hlatky, MD; Dena M. Bravata, MD, MS

From the Department of Health Research and Policy and the Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

Correspondence to Mark A. Hlatky, MD, Stanford University School of Medicine, HRP Redwood Bldg, Room 150, Stanford, CA 94305-5405. E-mail hlatky@stanford.edu

Key Words: Editorials • angioplasty • coronary artery disease • revascularization • stents • surgery • trials

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

	Introduction

 
Coronary angioplasty and coronary bypass surgery are mechanical approaches to atherosclerotic obstructions that impede coronary blood flow. In bypass surgery, arterial and venous conduits are placed beyond the proximal obstructions. By contrast, in angioplasty, the area of narrowing is expanded and now usually buttressed with a stent. Neither mechanical approach addresses the fundamental disease process, however, which needs to be treated with medications and lifestyle changes.

Article p 381

The perennial question is whether angioplasty or surgery yields better clinical outcomes. Even without randomized clinical trials, it is obvious that angioplasty is a less invasive procedure and that patients recover more quickly. Individual randomized trials have been large enough to show that bypass surgery generally reduces angina and repeat interventions to a greater extent than angioplasty does. But for the most important clinical outcome, mortality, single randomized clinical trials have not been large enough to provide definitive results. Because mortality is infrequent after contemporary coronary revascularization, lengthy follow-up is required to provide an adequate comparison of surgery and angioplasty. Large numbers of patients are required to ensure sufficient statistical power to detect clinically meaningful differences in mortality. Trials of the needed size and duration are difficult to organize and highly expensive. The results of every such trial are important pieces of the puzzle.

The Stent or Surgery (SoS) trial is one of the largest randomized comparisons of coronary angioplasty and bypass surgery. Investigators at 53 study centers in 11 countries between 1996 and 1999 randomized 988 patients with multivessel coronary . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Mehilli, A. Kastrati, R. A. Byrne, O. Bruskina, R. Iijima, S. Schulz, J. Pache, M. Seyfarth, S. Massberg, K.-L. Laugwitz, et al. Paclitaxel- Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 12, 2009; 53(19): 1760 - 1768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]