Key result
Coronary bypass surgery provided a significant survival benefit over PCI in the first 8 years for patients with three-vessel disease (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.69-0.84; p<0.001).
Why the study?
Does coronary bypass surgery improve long-term survival compared to percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary disease?
Population
22,880 patients with coronary disease from the Feiring Heart Clinic database
Comparison
Coronary bypass surgery (n=7,802) vs Percutaneous coronary intervention (n=15,078)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
up to 16 years
Authors
Loading...
May support CABG over PCI for three-vessel disease survival; leaves open randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=22,880)
No
Does coronary bypass surgery improve long-term survival compared to percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary disease?
Effect estimate: HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84)
p-value: p=<0.001
Coronary bypass surgery provides a significant survival advantage over percutaneous coronary intervention in the first 8 years for patients with three-vessel coronary disease, but not for those with one- or two-vessel disease.
Mølstad et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Coronary disease (n=22,880). Coronary bypass surgery vs. Percutaneous coronary intervention was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.84, p=<0.001). Coronary bypass surgery provided a significant survival benefit over PCI in the first 8 years for patients with three-vessel disease (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.69-0.84; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: