Comparison of Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Kumar, Ratan; Mal, Kheraj; Razaq, Muhammad Khalid; Magsi, Mansoor; Memon, Muhammad Qasim; Memon, Sidra; Irfan, Sana; Bansari, Kanwal; Ali, Basma; Rizwan, Amber

doi:10.7759/cureus.12202

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, 12 studies assessed all-cause mortality by enrolling 9,941 patients (4,954 treated with CABG and 4,987 with PCI) [3,4,7,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. The pooled data of included studies revealed that the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients treated with PCI compared to CABG (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.10-1.45).…”

Section: All-cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, 11 studies compared the risk of myocardial infarction between two study groups including 8,953 patients with CAD (4,499 in the PCI group and 4,454 in the CABG group) [3,4,7,13,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Myocardial estimates from the random-effect model showed no significant difference in myocardial infarction between the PCI and CABG arm (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.82-1.67, I 2 = 69%), as shown in Figure 5.…”

Section: Myocardial Infarction Stroke and Revascularizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The findings of this meta-analysis are in line with short-term outcomes reported by Head et al [ 25 ] and other retrospective studies [ 26 , 27 ]. Zhang et al conducted a meta-analysis [ 19 ] and reported no difference in all-cause mortality between PCI and CABG among patients with left main CAD. Subgroup analysis in this meta-analysis identified a similar trend.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Shaik¹,

Chaudhari²,

Haider³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are the options for revascularization in coronary artery disease (CAD). This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of CABG and PCI for the management of patients with CAD. The meta-analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. The reference list of included articles was also searched manually for additional publications. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. In total, 12 randomized control trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 9,941 patients (4,954 treated with CABG and 4,987 with PCI). The analysis showed that PCI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-1.45) and revascularization (RR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.82-3.21). However, no significant differences were reported between two arms regarding cardiovascular mortality (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.96-1.39), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.82-1.67), and stroke (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.35-1.16). CABG was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and revascularization compared to PCI. However, no significant difference was reported in the risk of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke between the two groups.

show abstract

Section: All-cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Myocardial Infarction Stroke and Revascularizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Shaik¹,

Chaudhari²,

Haider³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Наиболее информативным является завершенное исследование SYNTAX, в котором были рандомизированы пациенты, направленные на хирургическое лечение, с проведенным ранее ЧКВ при трехсосудистых и стволовых коронарных поражениях. В исследовании было выявлено преимущество АКШ по рецидивам стенокардии через год после операции [7,8]. Также в ходе исследования был разработан индекс поражения коронарных сосудов -SYNTAX Score.…”

Section: краткие сообщения введениеunclassified

Aortocoronary Bypass Surgery in Patients with Recurrent Post-Coronary Stenting Angina

Valieva

Мультановский

Сибгатуллин

2021

Kreativnaâ hirurgiâ i onkologiâ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. A wide adoption of percutaneous coronary operations has led to an average one-third reduction in the aortocoronary bypass surgery (ACB) rate and altering of the ACB patient profile to mainly represent advanced occlusive coronary atherosclerosis.Materials and methods. The study analyses treatment outcomes in coronary heart disease patients with recurrent angina after a previous endovascular intervention. Over years 2009–2015, 1,023 ACB operations were performed at the Almetyevsk — OAO Tatneft Medical Unit cardiac surgery rooms. Pre-surgery coronary artery stenting (CAS) was rendered at various terms in 96 patients (23 % women, 76 % men; cohort 1). The main cohort (n = 96) was divided into 2 subgroups: IA (n = 64), single CAS; IB (n = 32), multiple CAS patients. For statistical significance, cohort 2 (control) comprised 185 patients (21 % women, 79 % men) to include every 5th history of the remaining 927 patients operated within same period.Results and discussion. The mean aortic occlusion time was shorter in multiple CAS patients vs. other cohorts (61.3 ± 31.2 vs. 72.5 ± 27.8 and 70.7 ± 41.2 min). Cohort 1 had an overall higher emergency resternotomy rate due to ongoing bleeding (7.4 and 8.3 vs. 2.0 %). Furthermore, pre-surgery multiple CAS patients more likely faced the complications of perioperative MI (8.5 vs. 3.1 and 1.4 %) and acute postoperative heart failure (7.2 vs. 2.3 and 1.4 %, p < 0.01). This cohort often required inotropic support (9.3 vs. 3.8 and 2.1 %).Conclusion. Statistical analysis revealed a significantly higher complication and mortality rate in patients with previous coronary stenting compared to ACB patients. Adverse ACB outcomes were observed with multiple-coronary stenting cases, in contrast to the cohort with no pre-surgery interventions.

show abstract

Comparison of Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Cited by 2 publications

References 11 publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Comparative Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Aortocoronary Bypass Surgery in Patients with Recurrent Post-Coronary Stenting Angina

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About