4.4 Article

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation for Previous Myocardial Infarction

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 118, Issue 1, Pages 17-22

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.04.009

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Cardiovascular Research Foundation [2015-8]
  2. Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul, Korea [2014-217]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI) have a high risk of recurrence. Little is known about the effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with a previous MI and left main or multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). We compared long-term outcomes of these 2 strategies in 672 patients with previous MI and left main or multivessel CAD, who underwent CABG (n = 349) or PCI with DES (n = 323). A pooled database from the BEST, PRECOMBAT, and SYNTAX trials was analyzed, and the primary outcome was a composite of death from any causes, MI, or stroke. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The median follow-up duration was 59.8 months. The rate of the primary outcome was significantly lower with CABG than PCI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.82; p = 0.002). This difference was driven by a marked reduction in the rate of MI (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55, p <0.001). The benefit of CABG over PCI was consistent across all major subgroups. The individual risks of death from any causes or stroke were comparable between the 2 groups. Conversely, the rate of repeat revascularization was significantly lower with CABG than PCI (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.51, p <0.001). In conclusion, in the patients with previous MI and left main or multivessel CAD, compared to PCI with DES, CABG significantly reduces the risk of death from any causes, MI, or stroke. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2016;118:17-22)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available