2002
DOI: 10.1067/mtc.2002.122525
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting in isolated high-grade stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery: Six months' angiographic and clinical follow-up of a prospective randomized study

Abstract: After 6 months, surgical intervention had a significantly better angiographic outcome than stenting in patients with an isolated high-grade stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. Clinical outcome did not significantly differ between treatments.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
26
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The discussion about potential shortcomings of CABG as compared to PCI was fueled after the first large industry‐funded trial3 found significantly higher rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in the PCI group (17.8% versus 12.4% for CABG; P =0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% versus 5.9%); however, at 12 months, strokes were 4‐fold more likely to occur with CABG (2.2% versus 0.6% with PCI; P =0.003). None of the following studies comparing PCI with OPCAB38, 39, 40, 41 were powered for stroke, and none reports the extent of “no‐touch” technique in the CABG group. Conversely, one recent trial assessing midterm outcomes of 438 patients randomly assigned to the PCI with everolimus eluting stents and 442 randomly assigned to the CABG group42 found no difference in the risk of stroke between the 2 groups: hazard ratio 0.86 (0.39–1.93); P =0.72.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The discussion about potential shortcomings of CABG as compared to PCI was fueled after the first large industry‐funded trial3 found significantly higher rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in the PCI group (17.8% versus 12.4% for CABG; P =0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% versus 5.9%); however, at 12 months, strokes were 4‐fold more likely to occur with CABG (2.2% versus 0.6% with PCI; P =0.003). None of the following studies comparing PCI with OPCAB38, 39, 40, 41 were powered for stroke, and none reports the extent of “no‐touch” technique in the CABG group. Conversely, one recent trial assessing midterm outcomes of 438 patients randomly assigned to the PCI with everolimus eluting stents and 442 randomly assigned to the CABG group42 found no difference in the risk of stroke between the 2 groups: hazard ratio 0.86 (0.39–1.93); P =0.72.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two studies 100,104 used minimally invasive surgery and one other compared stenting with internal mammary artery grafting. 102 The remainder of the trials used standard surgical techniques, although the SOS trial 103 indicates that in some institutions standard care may have included minimally invasive surgery.…”
Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three studies included patients with multiplevessel disease 101,103,110 and three 100,102,104 included patients with isolated single-vessel (LAD) disease. All but two studies 100,102 explicitly excluded patients who had a history of revascularisation.…”
Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations