Key result
Spinal cord stimulation and CABG both improve quality of life with comparable 5-year mortality.
Why the study?
To assess the long-term outcome regarding quality of life and survival in patients with severe angina, increased surgical risk, and no prognostic benefits from revascularization.
Does spinal cord stimulation improve quality of life and survival compared to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe angina and increased surgical risk?
RCT (n=104)
randomized
Does spinal cord stimulation improve quality of life and survival compared to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe angina and increased surgical risk?
p-value: p=<0.001
Spinal cord stimulation provides comparable long-term quality of life improvements and survival to coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk patients with severe angina.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“data from the Electrical Stimulation Bypass Surgery (ESBY) trial — which was published in Circulation in 1998 — suggested that SCS may be a therapeutic alternative for patients with an increased risk of surgical complications and no prognostic benefit from surgery”
Spinal cord stimulation and CABG both confer lasting QoL gains in severe angina; extends ESBY findings but leaves open relevance to modern therapies.
Olof Ekre (2002) conducted an RCT in Severe angina pectoris (n=104). Spinal cord stimulation vs. Coronary artery bypass grafting was evaluated on Quality of life and 5-year mortality (p=<0.001). Spinal cord stimulation and coronary artery bypass grafting both significantly improved quality of life (P<0.001 vs run-in) with comparable 5-year mortality (27.9% overall).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: