Published online before print August 25, 2008, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.752147
(Circulation. 2008;118:1146-1154.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.
Interventional Cardiology |
Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stenting and Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease
A Meta-Analysis With 5-Year Patient-Level Data From the ARTS, ERACI-II, MASS-II, and SoS Trials
From Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (J.D., E.B., P.W.S.); Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK (M.F., J.B., R.S.); Otamendi Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina (A.R., G.R.-G.); and Heart Institute (InCor), University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil (W.A.H., P.A.L.).
Correspondence to Professor P.W. Serruys, MD, PhD, Thoraxcenter, Ba-583, Dr Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, Netherlands. E-mail p.w.j.c.serruys{at}erasmusmc.nl
Received November 13, 2007; accepted June 30, 2008.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Background— Randomized trials that studied clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are underpowered to properly assess safety end points like death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Pooling data from randomized controlled trials increases the statistical power and allows better assessment of the treatment effect in high-risk subgroups.
Methods and Results— We performed a pooled analysis of 3051 patients in 4 randomized trials evaluating the relative safety and efficacy of PCI with stenting and CABG at 5 years for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. The primary end point was the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The secondary end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular accidents, death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. We tested for heterogeneities in treatment effect in patient subgroups. At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke was similar in patients randomized to PCI with stenting versus CABG (16.7% versus 16.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.27; P=0.69). Repeat revascularization, however, occurred significantly more frequently after PCI than CABG (29.0% versus 7.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.29; P<0.001). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were significantly higher in the PCI than the CABG group (39.2% versus 23.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.61; P<0.001). No heterogeneity of treatment effect was found in the subgroups, including diabetic patients and those presenting with 3-vessel disease.
Conclusions— In this pooled analysis of 4 randomized trials, PCI with stenting was associated with a long-term safety profile similar to that of CABG. However, as a result of persistently lower repeat revascularization rates in the CABG patients, overall major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates were significantly lower in the CABG group at 5 years.
Key Words: bypass • coronary disease • prognosis • stents • surgery
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered the gold standard for treating multivessel coronary artery disease, mainly because of its higher rate of complete revascularization, reflected by a lower need for repeat revascularizations compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).1–4
Clinical Perspective p 1154
Whereas the risk difference of CABG versus balloon angioplasty for repeat revascularization in a large-scale meta-analysis proved to be 34% at 3 years, this difference decreased to 15% when coronary stents were used.1 In terms of clinical safety end points, the recently reported 5-year follow-up of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS),5 Argentine Randomized Trial of Coronary Angioplasty With Stenting Versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in Patients With Multiple Vessel Disease (ERACI-II),6 and the Medicine, Angioplasty or Surgery Study for Multi-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease (MASS-II)7 reported no difference in death rates between the 2 revascularization strategies. Conversely, the Stent or Surgery (SoS) trial recently demonstrated a significantly lower survival in patients treated with PCI compared with CABG at 6 years.7a
In the present study, patient-level data of the above-mentioned randomized trials were pooled to make a more precise estimate of the relative long-term safety and efficacy of PCI with stenting and CABG for multivessel coronary artery disease, to assess the relative treatment effect in several high-risk subgroups, and to assess the heterogeneity of the treatment effect.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Study Design and Patient Population
The methodology of the present meta-analysis has been described previously.8 In brief, a MEDLINE search using the keywords coronary stenting, coronary artery bypass surgery, and multisystem/multivessel disease was performed with the intention of selecting and including all randomized clinical trials comparing PCI with stenting and CABG in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Four trials were selected: ARTS,9 SoS,10 ERACI-II,11 and MASS-II.12
Principal investigators of each study group were contacted, and individual patient data were requested on a broad range of baseline characteristics, medication usage, procedural results, and clinical outcome at 5 years. Clinical outcome included data on death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization (either PCI or CABG) at 5 years for ARTS, MASS-II, and ERACI-II. For the SoS trial, 5-year follow-up data were restricted to survival data. Data on the occurrence of stroke, MI, and repeat revascularization between 1 and 5 years were not collected by the SoS investigators.
Clinical events were adjudicated by independent clinical event committees. The patient-level–based data were subsequently transferred to Erasmus University Medical Center (Rotterdam, the Netherlands; E.B.) to 2 researchers (J.D., P.W.S.) who analyzed and interpreted the data.
Definitions and Clinical End Points
No attempt was made to readjudicate the events in the different trials to compensate for the differences in the individual end-point definitions. Given the randomized design of the 4 trials, no bias was expected. The primary end point was the composite end point of death, stroke, or MI at 5 years. The secondary end points included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (defined as the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular accidents: all-cause death, stroke, MI, and repeat revascularization); the combined end point of all-cause death, MI, or repeat revascularization; and the itemized end points of death, stroke, MI, and repeat revascularization (PCI or CABG).
Statistical Analysis
All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat population. Most continuous variables had nonnormal distribution (as evaluated by Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests). For reasons of uniformity, summary statistics for all continuous variables are therefore presented as medians and 25th and 75th percentiles. Categorical data are summarized as frequencies and percentages. Differences in baseline characteristics between patients randomized to PCI with stenting versus CABG were analyzed with Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests or Fisher’s exact tests as appropriate.
The incidence of events over time was studied by the Kaplan–Meier method, and log-rank tests were applied to evaluate differences between patients allocated to PCI with stenting or CABG. Additionally, Cox proportional-hazards regression models were applied to further evaluate the effects of allocated treatment on the incidence of events over time. Because aggregated estimates of treatment effect that are based on small numbers of studies are sensitive to the chosen pooling method, we applied a variety of such methods, which showed quite consistent results. First, hazard ratios (HRs) for study end points were determined from the proportional-hazards model stratified by trial with a single fixed effect according to the Yusuf–Peto13 approach. Subsequently, nonstratified models were fitted with study membership as a covariate in the model, allowing for the adjustment of trial effects and variations in the standards of practice across participating institutions.14 Then, trial-by-treatment interaction terms were added to evaluate heterogeneity in treatment effect across trials. Interaction terms also were added to study heterogeneities in treatment effects according to clinically relevant characteristics, including age, gender, diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, prior MI, number of diseased vessels, left ventricular ejection fraction, and peripheral vascular disease. Because the –2 log likelihood of the regression models was not improved by adding interaction terms (except for death in relation to trial; see the Results section), we decided to stick to the fixed-effects approach and to remove any interaction term from further models. The HRs that are finally reported (together with the 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) are based on regression models with allocated treatment as the main effect and with the above-mentioned clinical characteristics as covariates.15
All tests are 2 sided with a significance level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed with the SAS System version 8.2 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC).
The authors had full access to and take full responsibility for the integrity of the data. All authors have read and agree to the manuscript as written.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Patients, Baseline, and Procedural Characteristics
A total of 3051 patients were included in this analysis between June 1995 and June 2000 (1205 in ARTS, 450 in ERACI-II, 408 in MASS-II, and 988 in SoS). In total, 1533 were randomized to CABG, and 1518 were randomized to PCI. Eighty-nine percent of patients allocated to PCI underwent the assigned treatment compared with 96% of those assigned to CABG.
Baseline and procedural characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Although 3-vessel disease was more frequent in the CABG group compared with the PCI group (40.0% versus 36.1%, respectively; P=0.017), complete revascularization was performed in 89.4% of the CABG patients compared with 62.0% of the PCI patients (P<0.001). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the CABG group (median, 8 days; interquartile range, 1 to 4 days) compared with the PCI group (median, 3 days; interquartile range, 6 to 11) (P<0.001).
|
Clinical Outcome
Clinical event rates are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 1. Five-year follow-up was complete for 97% of all patients (100% in ARTS and ERACI-II, 97.5% in MASS-II, and 91.6% in SoS). At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of death, MI, and stroke was similar in patients randomized to PCI with stenting versus CABG (16.7% versus 16.9%, respectively; HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.27; P=0.69). Repeat revascularization, however, occurred significantly more frequently after PCI compared with CABG (29.0% versus 7.9%, respectively; HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.29; P<0.001). Because of the substantial difference in the repeat revascularization rates between both treatment modalities, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates were significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (39.2% versus 23.0%, respectively; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.61; P<0.001).
|
|
Heterogeneity
As far as the composite end point of death, stroke, and MI is concerned, there was no evidence of heterogeneity in the treatment effect between the 4 trials. However, we found significant heterogeneity in the treatment effect for death at 5 years between SoS and the other trials (P=0.0074; Figure 2A). In SoS, CABG was associated with a 44% reduction in 5-year mortality rate compared with PCI with stenting (cumulative survival, 95.5% versus 92.1%, respectively; HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.95), whereas no such reduction was observed in the remaining trials (91.2% versus 90.0%, respectively; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.52). No heterogeneity was observed between SoS and ARTS with respect to the effects of CABG versus PCI with stenting on 5-year mortality rate (P=0.09). Furthermore, no significant heterogeneity for the composite end point of death, stroke, and MI was found for any of the clinical and anatomic subgroups of interest shown in Figures 2B and 3
.
|
|
Patients With Diabetes
For the composite end point of death, stroke, and MI, no heterogeneity in treatment was found between patients with diabetes and those without diabetes (Figure 3). In patients with diabetes, the cumulative incidence of death was 12.4% in the PCI group compared with 7.9% in the CABG group (P=0.09). In patients without diabetes, the cumulative incidence of death was 7.7% in the PCI group compared with 8.3% in the CABG group (P=0.55). The cumulative incidence of death, stroke, or MI in diabetics was similar after PCI with stenting and CABG (21.4% versus 20.9%, respectively; P=0.9). However, the HR for repeat revascularization in the diabetic subgroup was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.29) as a result of a 3-fold-higher cumulative incidence of repeat revascularization in the PCI group (29.7% versus 9.2%; P<0.001).
2-Vessel Versus 3-Vessel Disease
The cumulative 5-year incidence of death was similar between PCI and CABG in both the 2-vessel disease (7.6% versus 7.3%, respectively; P=0.87) and the 3-vessel disease (10.2% versus 9.5%, respectively; P=0.71) subgroups. The cumulative incidence of death, stroke, and MI was similar between PCI and CABG in both the 2- and 3-vessel subgroups. However, repeat revascularization rates were significantly higher in the PCI group in patients with 2-vessel and in those with 3-vessel disease (29.0% versus 7.2%, P<0.001; and 28.9% versus 7.8%, P<0.001, respectively), resulting in a significantly lower incidence of the combined major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in the CABG cohort for both 2- and 3-vessel disease.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The present study was conducted using individual patient-based data with complete follow-up until 5 years. We demonstrated that at 5 years PCI and CABG were associated with a similar safety profile, expressed by hard clinical end points like death, stroke, and MI. These results confirm the previous findings of a large-scale review of 23 PCI (with and without stenting) versus CABG trials by Bravata et al,16 which demonstrated no difference in the 5-year survival rates between both treatment modalities. No differences in survival rates between PCI and CABG were noted even up to 13 years.17–20
A nonrandomized study that reached different conclusions was a large-scale registry (n=59 314) by Hannan and colleagues.21 Risk-adjusted survival rates in this study were significantly higher in patients treated with CABG than in those treated with PCI with stenting. Bearing in mind that all baseline characteristics collected in this study were significantly different between the PCI and CABG groups and the unadjustable characteristic "judgment of the treating physician to chose for either PCI or CABG," we must interpret these results with caution. Furthermore, the shorter follow-up and the higher-risk profile (higher age, higher incidence of diabetes, lower ejection fraction) of patients included in the study by Hannan and colleagues compared with the present meta-analysis make it difficult to put the results into perspective.
All 4 randomized trials included in the present meta-analysis studied the safety and effectiveness of PCI with bare metal stents. Since 2002, drug-eluting stents have been shown to halve repeat reinterventions rates without affecting the short- and long-term safety of the treatment.22–25 Moreover, because of their significantly lower revascularization rates, sirolimus-eluting stents proved to be capable of narrowing the gap in major adverse cardiac event rates between PCI and CABG, as demonstrated by the ARTS-II and ERACI-III studies.26,27 In contrast to the ARTS-I study, the recently presented 3-year results of the ARTS-II study showed similar major adverse cardiac event rates after PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents and CABG. However, the need for repeat revascularization was still significantly lower after CABG.28 Although both ERACI-III and ARTS-II showed a clear impact of drug-eluting stents on the relative efficacy of PCI and CABG, it must be noted that both studies were nonrandomized comparisons. Along these lines, a recent registry by Javaid et al29 reported significantly higher mortality rates and a trend toward higher MI rates in patients treated with PCI with drug-eluting stents compared with those treated with CABG at 1 year regardless of the amount of vessels diseased and the presence of diabetes.29 It is worth mentioning that the 1-year results of none of the 4 randomized trials in the present study concurred with these latter findings.9–12 Given the similar, if not superior, safety profile of drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents, it is unlikely that the use of drug-eluting stents in this study accounted for this dissimilarity.22,23,30 Several large-scale randomized trials such as Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients With Diabetes: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease (FREEDOM), Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetics (CARDIA), and Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) are currently comparing the safety and effectiveness of CABG and PCI with drug-eluting stents.31
Of note, despite the improvement in durability of more contemporary PCI with (drug-eluting) stents, long-term survival rates do not seem to improve in a similar fashion and remain equal between PCI and CABG. This finding recalls a major goal of treating (multivessel) coronary artery disease: the relief of angina. Despite the fact that at 1 year after CABG significantly more patients were free of angina compared with PCI in all 4 trials,9–12 5-year reports of the ARTS, ERACI-II, and MASS-II demonstrated similar incidences of angina at 5 years after CABG and PCI.5–7 Additionally, the final results from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) trial proved that even up to 10 years, angina rates were still equal between both treatment modalities.17 However, in the PCI group, these similar angina rates were achieved only after a significantly higher rate of repeat revascularizations compared with the CABG group.
Significant heterogeneity in treatment effect was noted between SoS and the remaining trials with respect to survival at 5 years. Although the 5-year cumulative survival in the PCI arm of SoS (92.1%) was similar to the ARTS, ERACI-II, and MASS-II trials (92.2%, 92.9%, and 86.3% respectively), the survival in the CABG arm of SoS (95.5%) was remarkably higher than in ARTS, ERACI-II, and MASS-II (92.6%, 88.5%, and 84.1%, respectively). The exact reason for this superior survival rate remains puzzling, and a play of chance cannot be excluded. A speculative reason for the heterogeneity might be the difference in the inclusion criteria and procedural requirements in the different studies. In ARTS, higher-risk patients were excluded; 67% of the patients had 2-vessel disease; and an equivalent revascularization rate was required.9,32 Conversely, in MASS-II, almost 58% of the patients had 3-vessel disease, and a proximal left anterior descending artery lesion was required.12 Additionally, the SoS trial protocol stated that the study was intended to be a "pragmatic trial," including enrollment of a wide range of patients with minimal restriction on postrandomization patient management. However, both patient groups in SoS were well matched, and it is unlikely that the pragmatic nature of the trial was the reason for the unexpected difference in death rates, which are not confirmed by the larger sample of this meta-analysis.10
Coronary artery disease in diabetics has been shown to be more aggressive and to be associated with an impaired event-free survival after both CABG and PCI because of smaller vessel sizes, longer lesion length, greater plaque burden, and a possibly differently acting restenotic cascade than in nondiabetics.33–38 Given this higher-risk profile, which is most often associated with multivessel disease, CABG was regarded as the preferred revascularization method because of its ability to bypass this large amount of plaque burden and to achieve more complete revascularization rates, making the need for repeat revascularizations less likely. Attempting to demonstrate the most optimal treatment strategy for diabetics, a subgroup analysis of the randomized BARI trial and a large observational registry demonstrated significantly impaired survival among patients treated with PCI compared with those treated with CABG.36,39 Interestingly, in the BARI registry, all-cause survival was not significantly different between both groups.40 Furthermore, all the above-mentioned studies were performed in the prestent era and may no longer be applicable in current clinical practice. In the present analysis, using pooled patient-level–based 5-year follow-up data from 4 randomized controlled trials, we found no significant heterogeneity of the treatment effect in diabetics compared with nondiabetics, although our analysis might have suffered from a lack of power. The ongoing FREEDOM and CARDIA trials will further address the relative safety and efficacy of CABG and more contemporary PCI with drug-eluting stents in diabetics.
Two randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with CABG, the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME) and a Randomized Comparison of Stent Implantation and Off-Pump Bypass Surgery in Patients Referred for Coronary Angioplasty (OCTOSTENT) trials,41,42 were excluded from the present meta-analysis. The AWESOME trial (n=454) included only high-risk patients with refractory myocardial ischemia and a high risk of adverse outcomes, generating a study population clearly different from the present one. Moreover, 54% of the patients in AWESOME were treated with balloon angioplasty only. The OCTOSTENT trial (n=280), with only 30% of the population having multivessel disease, was not yet published when the initial meta-analysis by Mercado et al8 was performed. Of note, neither AWESOME nor OCTOSTENT completed the 5-year follow-up at the time of the present meta-analysis.
Pooling data from 4 multicenter randomized controlled trials with diversity in inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in a diverse and high-risk patient population. However, patients with severe 3-vessel disease presenting with an acute coronary syndrome, left main lesions, previous coronary interventions, heart failure, or renal disease were excluded in all 4 trials. Although no heterogeneity in the treatment effect was found among several high-risk subgroups in the present analysis, the results of several large-scale, dedicated, randomized controlled trials are eagerly awaited to determine the external validity of our findings. Until the relatively short-term findings of these large trials are presented, the results from the present meta-analysis constitute the highest amount of clinical evidence regarding the relative long-term safety of PCI using stents and CABG.
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
In this pooled analysis of 4 randomized trials, PCI was associated with a long-term safety profile, expressed by death, stroke, and MI, similar to that of CABG. However, because of the persistently lower repeat revascularization rates in the CABG patients, overall major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates were significantly lower in the CABG group at 5 years. Dedicated trial data on the impact of drug-eluting stents, the relief of angina, and the role of PCI in higher-risk patients are warranted.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Disclosures
Dr Stables received research grants from Cordis, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott and has served as a consultant or on the advisory board for Cordis, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott. The other authors report no conflicts.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
1. Hoffman SN, TenBrook JA, Wolf MP, Pauker SG, Salem DN, Wong JB. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: one- to eight-year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41: 1293–1304.
2. van der Hoeven BL, Schalij MJ, van der Wall EE. Percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement versus bypass operation in symptomatic multiple-vessel disease: lessons from an observational study [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005; 149: 2837–2840.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Bell MR, Gersh BJ, Schaff HV, Holmes DR Jr, Fisher LD, Alderman EL, Myers WO, Parsons LS, Reeder GS. Effect of completeness of revascularization on long-term outcome of patients with three-vessel disease undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: a report from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry. Circulation. 1992; 86: 446–457.
4. van den Brand MJ, Rensing BJ, Morel MA, Foley DP, de Valk V, Breeman A, Suryapranata H, Haalebos MM, Wijns W, Wellens F, Balcon R, Magee P, Ribeiro E, Buffolo E, Unger F, Serruys PW. The effect of completeness of revascularization on event-free survival at one year in the ARTS trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 559–564.
5. Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA, Sousa JE, Jatene A, Bonnier JJ, Schonberger JP, Buller N, Bonser R, Disco C, Backx B, Hugenholtz PG, Firth BG, Unger F. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46: 575–581.
6. Rodriguez AE, Baldi J, Fernandez Pereira C, Navia J, Rodriguez Alemparte M, Delacasa A, Vigo F, Vogel D, O'Neill W, Palacios IF. Five-year follow-up of the Argentine randomized trial of coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46: 582–588.
7. Hueb W, Lopes NH, Gersh BJ, Soares P, Machado LA, Jatene FB, Oliveira SA, Ramires JA. Five-year follow-up of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007; 115: 1082–1089.
7. Booth J, Clayton T, Pepper J, Nugara F, Flather M, Sigwart U, Stables RH, SoS Investigators. Randomized, controlled trial of coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: six-year follow-up from the Stent or Surgery Trial (SoS). Circulation. 2008; 118: 381–388.
8. Mercado N, Wijns W, Serruys PW, Sigwart U, Flather MD, Stables RH, O'Neill WW, Rodriguez A, Lemos PA, Hueb WA, Gersh BJ, Booth J, Boersma E. One-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting for multisystem disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized clinical trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005; 130: 512–519.
9. Serruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, Jatene A, Bonnier HJ, Schonberger JP, Buller N, Bonser R, van den Brand MJ, van Herwerden LA, Morel MA, van Hout BA. Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1117–1124.
10. Stables R. 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. Lancet. 2002; 360: 965–970.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Rodriguez A, Bernardi V, Navia J, Baldi J, Grinfeld L, Martinez J, Vogel D, Grinfeld R, Delacasa A, Garrido M, Oliveri R, Mele E, Palacios I, O'Neill W. 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: ERACI II Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37: 51–58.
12. Hueb W, Soares PR, Gersh BJ, Cesar LA, Luz PL, Puig LB, Martinez EM, Oliveira SA, Ramires JA. The Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS-II): a randomized, controlled clinical trial of three therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease: one-year results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43: 1743–1751.
13. Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985; 27: 335–371.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Michiels S, Baujat B, Mahe C, Sargent DJ, Pignon JP. Random effects survival models gave a better understanding of heterogeneity in individual patient data meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 238–245.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Steyerberg EW, Bossuyt PM, Lee KL. Clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction: should we adjust for baseline characteristics? Am Heart J. 2000; 139: 745–751.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Bravata DM, Gienger AL, McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Perez MV, Varghese R, Kapoor JR, Ardehali R, Owens DK, Hlatky MA. Systematic review: the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: 703–716.
17. BARI Investigators. The final 10-year follow-up results from the BARI randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49: 1600–1606.
18. King SB 3rd, Kosinski AS, Guyton RA, Lembo NJ, Weintraub WS. Eight-year mortality in the Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35: 1116–1121.
19. Kaehler J, Koester R, Billmann W, Schroeder C, Rupprecht HJ, Ischinger T, Jahns R, Vogt A, Lampen M, Hoffmann R, Riessen R, Berger J, Meinertz T, Hamm CW. 13-Year follow-up of the German angioplasty bypass surgery investigation. Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 2148–2153.
20. Henderson RA, Pocock SJ, Sharp SJ, Nanchahal K, Sculpher MJ, Buxton MJ, Hampton JR. Long-term results of RITA-1 trial: clinical and cost comparisons of coronary angioplasty and coronary-artery bypass grafting: Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina. Lancet. 1998; 352: 1419–1425.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G, Jones RH, Ryan TJ, Bennett E, Culliford AT, Isom OW, Gold JP, Rose EA. Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 2174–2183.
22. Tu JV, Bowen J, Chiu M, Ko DT, Austin PC, He Y, Hopkins R, Tarride JE, Blackhouse G, Lazzam C, Cohen EA, Goeree R. Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357: 1393–1402.
23. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, Kastrati A, Morice MC, Schomig A, Pfisterer ME, Stone GW, Leon MB, de Lezo JS, Goy JJ, Park SJ, Sabate M, Suttorp MJ, Kelbaek H, Spaulding C, Menichelli M, Vermeersch P, Dirksen MT, Cervinka P, Petronio AS, Nordmann AJ, Diem P, Meier B, Zwahlen M, Reichenbach S, Trelle S, Windecker S, Juni P. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007; 370: 937–948.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Pache J, Kaiser C, Valgimigli M, Kelbaek H, Menichelli M, Sabate M, Suttorp MJ, Baumgart D, Seyfarth M, Pfisterer ME, Schomig A. Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 1030–1039.
25. Stone GW, Moses JW, Ellis SG, Schofer J, Dawkins KD, Morice MC, Colombo A, Schampaert E, Grube E, Kirtane AJ, Cutlip DE, Fahy M, Pocock SJ, Mehran R, Leon MB. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 998–1008.
26. Serruys PW, Ong AT, Morice MC, De Bruyne B, Colombo A, Macaya C, Richardt G, Fajadet J, Hamm CW, Dawkins K, O'Malley AJ, Bressers M, Donohoe DJ. Arterial Revascularisation Therapies Study part II: Sirolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions. Eurointervention. 2005; 1: 147–156.
27. Rodriguez AE, Maree AO, Grinfeld L, Fernandez Pereira C, Mieres J, Rodriguez Alemparte M, Berrocal D, Rodriguez Granillo AM, Vigo CS, Russo Felsen M, O'Neill W, Palacios I. Revascularization strategies of coronary multivessel disease in the drug-eluting stent era: one year follow-up results of the ERACI-III trial. Eurointervention. 2006; 2: 53–60.
28. Serruys PW. Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study Part II: the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions: three-year clinical outcome. Paper presented at: Annual Scientific Sessions of the American College of Cardiology; March 24–27, 2007; New Orleans, La.
29. Javaid A, Steinberg DH, Buch AN, Corso PJ, Boyce SW, Pinto Slottow TL, Roy PK, Hill P, Okabe T, Torguson R, Smith KA, Xue Z, Gevorkian N, Suddath WO, Kent KM, Satler LF, Pichard AD, Waksman R. Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007; 116 (suppl): I-200–I-206.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Daemen J, Van Domburg R, Boersma E, de Jaegere P, Serruys P. A long-term survival analysis of 3 sequential cohorts of consecutive all comers (n=6129) treated with either bare-metal, sirolimus- or paclitaxel- eluting stents: an epidemiological analysis requested by the directing board of a Dutch tertiary medical center. Paper presented at: European Society of Cardiology; September 3, 2007; Vienna, Austria.
31. Ong AT, Serruys P, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, van den Brand MJ, Morel MA, van Es GA, Kleijne J, Koglin J, Russell ME. The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) Study: design, rationale and run-in phase. Am Heart J. 2006; 131: 1194–1204.
32. Serruys PW, Unger F, van Hout BA, van den Brand MJ, van Herwerden LA, van Es GA, Bonnier JJ, Simon R, Cremer J, Colombo A, Santoli C, Vandormael M, Marshall PR, Madonna O, Firth BG, Breeman A, Morel MA, Hugenholtz PG. The ARTS Study (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study). Semin Interv Cardiol. 1999; 4: 209–219.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33. Kip KE, Faxon DP, Detre KM, Yeh W, Kelsey SF, Currier JW. Coronary angioplasty in diabetic patients: the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Registry. Circulation. 1996; 94: 1818–1825.
34. Thourani VH, Weintraub WS, Stein B, Gebhart SS, Craver JM, Jones EL, Guyton RA. Influence of diabetes mellitus on early and late outcome after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999; 67: 1045–1052.
35. West NE, Ruygrok PN, Disco CM, Webster MW, Lindeboom WK, O'Neill WW, Mercado NF, Serruys PW. Clinical and angiographic predictors of restenosis after stent deployment in diabetic patients. Circulation. 2004; 109: 867–873.
36. Niles NW, McGrath PD, Malenka D, Quinton H, Wennberg D, Shubrooks SJ, Tryzelaar JF, Clough R, Hearne MJ, Hernandez F Jr, Watkins MW, O'Connor GT. Survival of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease after surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of a large regional prospective study: Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37: 1008–1015.
37. Lincoff AM. Important triad in cardiovascular medicine: diabetes, coronary intervention, and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade. Circulation. 2003; 107: 1556–1559.
38. Aronson D, Bloomgarden Z, Rayfield EJ. Potential mechanisms promoting restenosis in diabetic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996; 27: 528–535.[Abstract]
39. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease: the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996; 335: 217–225.
40. Detre KM, Guo P, Holubkov R, Califf RM, Sopko G, Bach R, Brooks MM, Bourassa MG, Shemin RJ, Rosen AD, Krone RJ, Frye RL, Feit F. Coronary revascularization in diabetic patients: a comparison of the randomized and observational components of the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). Circulation. 1999; 99: 633–640.
41. Eefting F, Nathoe H, van Dijk D, Jansen E, Lahpor J, Stella P, Suyker W, Diephuis J, Suryapranata H, Ernst S, Borst C, Buskens E, Grobbee D, de Jaegere P. Randomized comparison between stenting and off-pump bypass surgery in patients referred for angioplasty. Circulation. 2003; 108: 2870–2876.
42. Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J, Henderson W, Grover F, Sedlis S, Esposito R, Ramanathan K, Weiman D, Saucedo J, Antakli T, Paramesh V, Pett S, Vernon S, Birjiniuk V, Welt F, Krucoff M, Wolfe W, Lucke JC, Mediratta S, Booth D, Barbiere C, Lewis D. 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: Investigators of the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study #385, the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 143–149.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Continuing medical education (CME) credit is available for this article. Go to http://cme.ahajournals.org to take the quiz.
Related Article:
Circulation 2008 118: 1113-1114.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  A. Cassar, D. R. Holmes Jr, C. S. Rihal, and B. J. Gersh Chronic Coronary Artery Disease: Diagnosis and Management Mayo Clin. Proc., December 1, 2009; 84(12): 1130 - 1146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. W. Moses, M. B. Leon, and G. W. Stone Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Crossing the Threshold: Time for a Guidelines Revision! J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 13, 2009; 54(16): 1512 - 1514. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. T. McGinn Jr, S. Usman, H. Lapierre, V. R. Pothula, T. G. Mesana, and M. Ruel Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Dual-Center Experience in 450 Consecutive Patients Circulation, September 15, 2009; 120(11_suppl_1): S78 - S84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. B. Halbersma, S. C. Arrigoni, G. Mecozzi, J. G. Grandjean, A. P. Kappetein, J. van der Palen, F. Zijlstra, and M. A. Mariani Four-year outcome of OPCAB no-touch with total arterial Y-graft: making the best treatment a daily practice. Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2009; 88(3): 796 - 801. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Naik, A. J. White, T. Chakravarty, J. Forrester, G. Fontana, S. Kar, P. K. Shah, R. E. Weiss, and R. Makkar A Meta-Analysis of 3,773 Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., August 1, 2009; 2(8): 739 - 747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. A. Schwann, A. Zacharias, C. J. Riordan, S. J. Durham, A. S. Shah, and R. H. Habib Sequential radial artery grafts for multivessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery: 10-year survival and angiography results. Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2009; 88(1): 31 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. D. Frutkin, J. B. Lindsey, S. K. Mehta, J. A. House, J. A. Spertus, D. J. Cohen, J. S. Rumsfeld, S. P. Marso, and on behalf of the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Dat Drug-Eluting Stents and the Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Class I Indications for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Undergoing Index Revascularization: Analysis From the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., July 1, 2009; 2(7): 614 - 621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G.B. J. Mancini, E. R. Bates, D. J. Maron, P. Hartigan, M. Dada, G. Gosselin, W. Kostuk, S. P. Sedlis, L. J. Shaw, D. S. Berman, et al. Quantitative Results of Baseline Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the COURAGE Trial Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes, July 1, 2009; 2(4): 320 - 327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N Kukreja, P W Serruys, B De Bruyne, A Colombo, C Macaya, G Richardt, J Fajadet, C Hamm, D Goedhart, N Macours, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents, bare metal stents or coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with multivessel disease including involvement of the proximal left anterior descending artery: analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies study part 2 (ARTS-II) Heart, July 1, 2009; 95(13): 1061 - 1066. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill The year in interventional cardiology. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 2, 2009; 53(22): 2080 - 2097. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. Soran, A. Manchanda, and S. Schueler Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease: a current perspective Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, June 1, 2009; 8(6): 666 - 671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A A Fox COURAGE to change practice? Revascularisation in patients with stable coronary artery disease Heart, May 1, 2009; 95(9): 689 - 692. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. W. Serruys, M.-C. Morice, A. P. Kappetein, A. Colombo, D. R. Holmes, M. J. Mack, E. Stahle, T. E. Feldman, M. van den Brand, E. J. Bass, et al. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Severe Coronary Artery Disease N. Engl. J. Med., March 5, 2009; 360(10): 961 - 972. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Lange and L. D. Hillis Coronary Revascularization in Context N. Engl. J. Med., March 5, 2009; 360(10): 1024 - 1026. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. R. Smith Surgery, Not Percutaneous Revascularization, Is the Preferred Strategy for Patients With Significant Left Main Coronary Stenosis Circulation, February 24, 2009; 119(7): 1013 - 1020. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. E. Rodriguez and R. Waksman Sirolimus-Eluting Stents or Vascular Brachytherapy for In-Stent Restenosis After 3-Year Follow-Up of the SISR (Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Vascular Brachytherapy for In-Stent Restenosis) Trial: A Call for Caution? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., January 1, 2009; 2(1): 75 - 76. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Crea, P. G. Camici, R. De Caterina, and G. A. Lanza CHAPTER 17 Chronic Ischaemic Heart Disease ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, January 1, 2009; 2(1): med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||