July 1, 2018Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery144 citationsOpen Access
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of multivessel coronary disease: quo vadis? —a review of the evidences on coronary artery disease
Structured PICO
Does coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improve survival and reduce major cardiovascular events compared to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents in patients with multivessel coronary disease?
P
Population
Patients with multivessel ischemic coronary artery disease
I
Intervention
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)
C
Comparator
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents
O
Outcome
Survival, major cardiovascular events (specifically myocardial infarction or stroke), and repeat revascularizationhard clinical
This review reinforces that CABG offers superior survival and lower rates of major cardiovascular events and repeat revascularization compared to PCI with drug-eluting stents in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.
Abstract
The optimal treatment of ischemic coronary artery disease (CAD) is still controversial. A number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and several meta-analyses have been performed and are inspiring the current guidelines. However, a univocal consensus on the optimal therapeutic strategy for multivessel disease has still not been reached yet. We reviewed the current evidence on this topic, focusing on both RCT and meta-analyses. From both short and long-term studies, it emerges that in patients with multivessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with better survival, lower rates of major cardiovascular events (specifically myocardial infarction or stroke) and repeat revascularization as compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents.