Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Stenting versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

IF 0.5 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
International Journal of Angiology Pub Date : 2021-08-31 eCollection Date: 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1735238
Ian C Glenn, Gabriele M Iacona, Abeel A Mangi
{"title":"Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Stenting versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Stable Coronary Artery Disease.","authors":"Ian C Glenn, Gabriele M Iacona, Abeel A Mangi","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1735238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The debate over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement for the treatment of stable multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) continues in spite of numerous studies investigating the issue. This paper reviews the most recent randomized control trials (RCT) and meta-analyses of pooled RCT data to help address this issue. General trends demonstrated that CABG was superior in all-cause mortality and fulfilling the need for repeat revascularization. These advantages tended to be more pronounced in multivessel CAD and diabetes, and less so in left main CAD. PCI showed a consistently lower rate of cerebrovascular events. CABG continues to offer significant advantages over PCI, even as drug-eluting stent technology continues to evolve. The ideal endpoint for comparing PCI and CABG remains to be determined. Furthermore, additional research is required to further refine patient selection criteria for each intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":13798,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Angiology","volume":"30 3","pages":"221-227"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580606/pdf/10-1055-s-0041-1735238.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1735238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The debate over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement for the treatment of stable multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) continues in spite of numerous studies investigating the issue. This paper reviews the most recent randomized control trials (RCT) and meta-analyses of pooled RCT data to help address this issue. General trends demonstrated that CABG was superior in all-cause mortality and fulfilling the need for repeat revascularization. These advantages tended to be more pronounced in multivessel CAD and diabetes, and less so in left main CAD. PCI showed a consistently lower rate of cerebrovascular events. CABG continues to offer significant advantages over PCI, even as drug-eluting stent technology continues to evolve. The ideal endpoint for comparing PCI and CABG remains to be determined. Furthermore, additional research is required to further refine patient selection criteria for each intervention.

经皮冠状动脉介入支架术与冠状动脉旁路移植术在稳定型冠状动脉疾病中的应用。
尽管有许多研究对冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)或经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)加支架置入术治疗稳定型多支血管冠状动脉疾病(CAD)进行了调查,但有关这一问题的争论仍在继续。本文回顾了最新的随机对照试验(RCT)和汇总 RCT 数据的荟萃分析,以帮助解决这一问题。总体趋势表明,CABG 在降低全因死亡率和满足重复血运重建需求方面更具优势。这些优势在多血管 CAD 和糖尿病患者中更为明显,而在左主干 CAD 患者中则不那么明显。PCI 显示出持续较低的脑血管事件发生率。即使药物洗脱支架技术不断发展,CABG 仍比 PCI 具有显著优势。比较 PCI 和 CABG 的理想终点仍有待确定。此外,还需要进行更多的研究来进一步完善每种介入治疗的患者选择标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Angiology
International Journal of Angiology PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信