Journal Article
Observational Study
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Mid-to-long term mortality following surgical versus percutaneous coronary revascularization stratified according to stent subtype: An analysis of 6,682 patients with multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have largely been performed in the bare-metal stent (BMS) and first-generation drug eluting stent (F-DES) era. Second-generation DES (S-DES) have shown improved outcomes when compared to F-DES, but data comparing CABG with PCI using S-DES is limited. We compared mortality following CABG versus PCI for patients with multivessel disease and analyzed different stent types.

METHODS: A total of 6,682 patients underwent multivessel revascularization at Harefield Hospital, UK. We stratified CABG patients into single arterial graft (SAG) or multiple arterial grafts (MAG); and PCI patients into BMS, F-DES or S-DES groups. We analyzed all-cause mortality at 5 years.

RESULTS: 4,388 patients had CABG (n[SAG] = 3,358; n[MAG] = 1,030) and 2,294 patients had PCI (n[BMS] = 416; n[F-DES] = 752; n[S-DES] = 1,126). PCI had higher 5-year mortality with BMS (HR = 2.27, 95% CI:1.70-3.05, p<0.001); F-DES (HR = 1.52, 95% CI:1.14-2.01, p = 0.003); and S-DES (HR = 1.84, 95% CI:1.42-2.38, p<0.001). This was confirmed in inverse probability treatment weighted analyses. When adjusting for both measured and unmeasured factors using instrumental variable analyses, PCI had higher 5-year mortality with BMS (Δ = 15.5, 95% CI:3.6,27.5, p = 0.011) and FDES (Δ = 16.5, 95% CI:6.6,26.4, p<0.001), but had comparable mortality with CABG for PCI with SDES (Δ = 0.9, 95% CI: -9.6,7.9, p = 0.844), and when exclusively compared to CABG patients with SAG (Δ = 0.4, 95% CI: -8.0,8.7, p = 0.931) or MAG (Δ = 4.6, 95% CI: -0.4,9.6, p = 0.931).

CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis, when adjusting for measured and unmeasured confounding, PCI with SDES had comparable 5-year mortality when compared to CABG. This warrants evaluation in adequately-powered randomized controlled trials.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app