Key result
Review outlines consensus, controversies, and key uncertainties comparing PCI with CABG in stable CAD.
Why the study?
The relative merits of PCI versus CABG for stable coronary artery disease have been debated with ongoing areas of agreement, disagreement, and uncertainties.
Does PCI compared to CABG improve outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Does PCI compared to CABG improve outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
This review provides a combined perspective from interventional cardiology and cardiac surgery on the relative merits of PCI versus CABG for stable coronary artery disease.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clarifies PCI versus CABG trade-offs in stable CAD; extends trial data by mapping current agreements and uncertainties.
It is now half a century since the start of coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) with the first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following just over a decade later. The relative merits of PCI vs. CABG for stable coronary artery disease (stable-CAD) have continued to be debated ever since and have been the focus of around 20 randomized trials and numerous registry studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The aim of this review is to identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and uncertainties in the role of PCI and CABG in patients with stable-CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holmes et al. (2016) conducted a review in Stable coronary artery disease (stable-CAD). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. Coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) was evaluated. This review aims to identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and uncertainties regarding the relative merits of PCI versus CABG for patients with stable coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: