Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease.
Serruys, Patrick W; Morice, Marie-Claude; Kappetein, A Pieter; Colombo, Antonio; Holmes, David R; Mack, Michael J; Ståhle, Elisabeth; Feldman, Ted E; van den Brand, Marcel; Bass, Eric J; Van Dyck, Nic; Leadley, Katrin; Dawkins, Keith D; Mohr, Friedrich W.
Afiliação
  • Serruys PW; Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. p.w.j.c.serruys@erasmusmc.nl
N Engl J Med ; 360(10): 961-72, 2009 Mar 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19228612
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry. RESULTS: Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.)
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Doença da Artéria Coronariana / Angioplastia Coronária com Balão / Ponte de Artéria Coronária / Stents Farmacológicos Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: N Engl J Med Ano de publicação: 2009 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda País de publicação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Doença da Artéria Coronariana / Angioplastia Coronária com Balão / Ponte de Artéria Coronária / Stents Farmacológicos Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: N Engl J Med Ano de publicação: 2009 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda País de publicação: Estados Unidos