Key result
CABG remained the preferred strategy over PCI for treating three-vessel coronary artery disease, owing primarily to a greater need for second procedures after PCI.
An editorial discussing the ongoing need for randomized trials to compare the effectiveness of CABG versus PCI in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease.
Over the past 20 years, there have been 12 randomized trials in which the revascularization strategies of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been compared, against the background of advances in both fields. Percutaneous treatment of multiple vessels has become more feasible, more durable, and more common, and yet the most contemporary randomized trial comparing PCI with CABG showed that CABG remained the preferred strategy for the treatment of patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease, owing primarily to a greater need for second procedures after PCI.1 Weintraub and colleagues2 now present the results of the American . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laura Mauri (2012) conducted an editorial in three-vessel coronary artery disease. CABG vs. PCI was evaluated. CABG remained the preferred strategy over PCI for treating three-vessel coronary artery disease, owing primarily to a greater need for second procedures after PCI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: