Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Severe Coronary Artery Disease
4.326
Zitationen
14
Autoren
2009
Jahr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry. RESULTS: Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.)
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II)
2007 · 8.139 Zit.
2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization
2018 · 7.037 Zit.
Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170 000 participants in 26 randomised trials
2010 · 6.387 Zit.
Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials
2007 · 5.405 Zit.
2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation
2020 · 4.980 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- Erasmus MC(NL)
- Erasmus University Rotterdam(NL)
- Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud(FR)
- San Raffaele University of Rome(IT)
- Mylan (Switzerland)(CH)
- Mayo Clinic in Arizona(US)
- Medical City Dallas Hospital(US)
- City Hospital(GB)
- Uppsala University Hospital(SE)
- Evanston Hospital(US)
- Boston Scientific (United States)(US)
- Leipzig University(DE)
- Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité(DE)