4.7 Article

Eight-year mortality in the Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial (EAST)

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 1116-1121

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00546-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL 33965] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the long-term outcome of patients randomized to coronary bypass surgery or coronary angioplasty. BACKGROUND The Emery Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial (EAST) is a single center randomized comparison of a strategy of initial coronary angioplasty (n = 198) or coronary bypass surgery (n = 194) for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The primary end point (death, myocardial infarction or a large ischemic defect at 3 years) was not different, and repeat revascularization was significantly greater in the angioplasty group. Subsequently, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute supported a five-year extension of the trial. METHODS After the three year anniversary visit, annual questionnaires, telephone contact and examination of medical records were accomplished until death or the eight year anniversary in 100%, of the patients surviving at 3 years. RESULTS Survival at 8 years is 79.3% in the angioplasty group and 82.7% in the surgical group (p = 0.40). Patients with proximal left anterior descending stenosis and those with diabetes tended to have better late survival with surgical intervention although not reaching statistical significance. After the first 3 years, repeat interventions remained relatively equal for both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Long-term survival is not significantly different between angioplasty and surgery, and late (three to eight year) revascularization procedures were infrequent. Patients without treated diabetes had similar survival in both groups. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:1116-21) (C) 2000 by the American College of Cardiology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available