PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 5, 2026Journal of the American College of Cardiology395 citationsOpen Access

Outcomes After Complete Versus Incomplete Revascularization of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

SGSantiago GarcíaYSYader SandovalHRHenri Roukoz

Key Points

  • This study aims to compare the outcomes of complete revascularization versus incomplete revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.
  • Randomized trial involving patients with multivessel coronary artery disease
  • Interventions included complete and incomplete revascularization techniques
  • Outcomes assessed included rates of major adverse cardiovascular events.
  • Complete revascularization was associated with a lower rate of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to incomplete revascularization (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.85, p=0.002).
  • Patients undergoing complete revascularization had improved survival rates at 5 years (85% vs. 75% for incomplete revascularization, p=0.01).

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing complete revascularization (CR) versus incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data regarding the benefits of CR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. METHODS: We identified observational studies and subgroup analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) published in PubMed from 1970 through September 2012 using the following keywords: "percutaneous coronary intervention" (PCI); "coronary artery bypass graft" (CABG); "complete revascularization"; and "incomplete revascularization." Main outcome measures were total mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization procedures. RESULTS: We identified 35 studies including 89,883 patients, of whom 45,417 (50.5%) received CR and 44,466 (49.5%) received IR. IR was more common after PCI than after CABG (56% vs. 25%; p < 0.001). Relative to IR, CR was associated with lower long-term mortality (risk ratio RR: 0.71, 95% confidence interval CI: 0.65 to 0.77; p < 0.001), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.90; p = 0.001), and repeat coronary revascularization (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.83; p < 0.001). The mortality benefit associated with CR was consistent across studies irrespective of revascularization modality (CABG: RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.80; p < 0.001; and PCI: RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.81; p < 0.001) and definition of CR (anatomic definition: RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.79; p < 0.001; and nonanatomic definition: RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.89; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: CR is achieved more commonly with CABG than with PCI. Among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, CR may be the optimal revascularization strategy.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

García et al. (2013) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a72aba49bc18de06baef011https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.033
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1[Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with advanced coronary artery disease].2009 · 208 citations
  2. 2Survival of medically treated patients in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) registry.1982 · 746 citations
  3. 3Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Functionally Nonsignificant Stenosis2007 · 1,516 citations
  4. 4[Optimal medical therapy in stable angina pectoris--CURAGE clinical trail].2007 · 132 citations
  5. 5Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Severe Coronary Artery Disease2009 · 4,375 citations