Key result
Surgical and percutaneous revascularization for obstructive coronary artery disease remain subjects of ongoing debate regarding their relative clinical merits.
Why the study?
Does surgical revascularization compared to percutaneous revascularization improve outcomes in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease?
Does surgical revascularization compared to percutaneous revascularization improve outcomes in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease?
This article provides a review of the current literature regarding the relative merits of surgical versus percutaneous revascularization for obstructive coronary artery disease.
Debate on surgical versus percutaneous revascularization persists; leaves open optimal strategy selection pending contemporary comparative trials.
There is current debate regarding the relative merits and roles of surgical revascularization and percutaneous revascularization for patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. This article reviews the current literature relating to this subject.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wong et al. (2007) studied this question. Surgical and percutaneous revascularization for obstructive coronary artery disease remain subjects of ongoing debate regarding their relative clinical merits.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: