Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 2008;118:1146-1154
Published online before print August 25, 2008, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.752147
Free Article
This Article
Free upon publication Free Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the course for this article:
Circulation: September 9, 2008, Volume 118, Number 11
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
118/11/1146    most recent
CIRCULATIONAHA.107.752147v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Daemen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Serruys, P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Daemen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Serruys, P. W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Restenosis
Right arrow Other diabetes
Right arrow Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents
Right arrow CV surgery: coronary artery disease
Right arrowRelated Article

(Circulation. 2008;118:1146-1154.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.


Interventional Cardiology

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stenting and Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

A Meta-Analysis With 5-Year Patient-Level Data From the ARTS, ERACI-II, MASS-II, and SoS Trials

Joost Daemen, MD; Eric Boersma, PhD; Marcus Flather, MBBS; Jean Booth, MSc; Rod Stables, MA, DM, FRCP; Alfredo Rodriguez, MD; Gaston Rodriguez-Granillo, MD, PhD; Whady A. Hueb, MD; Pedro A. Lemos, MD, PhD; Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD

From Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (J.D., E.B., P.W.S.); Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK (M.F., J.B., R.S.); Otamendi Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina (A.R., G.R.-G.); and Heart Institute (InCor), University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil (W.A.H., P.A.L.).

Correspondence to Professor P.W. Serruys, MD, PhD, Thoraxcenter, Ba-583, Dr Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, Netherlands. E-mail p.w.j.c.serruys{at}erasmusmc.nl

Received November 13, 2007; accepted June 30, 2008.

Background— Randomized trials that studied clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are underpowered to properly assess safety end points like death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Pooling data from randomized controlled trials increases the statistical power and allows better assessment of the treatment effect in high-risk subgroups.

Methods and Results— We performed a pooled analysis of 3051 patients in 4 randomized trials evaluating the relative safety and efficacy of PCI with stenting and CABG at 5 years for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. The primary end point was the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The secondary end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular accidents, death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. We tested for heterogeneities in treatment effect in patient subgroups. At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke was similar in patients randomized to PCI with stenting versus CABG (16.7% versus 16.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.27; P=0.69). Repeat revascularization, however, occurred significantly more frequently after PCI than CABG (29.0% versus 7.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.29; P<0.001). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were significantly higher in the PCI than the CABG group (39.2% versus 23.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.61; P<0.001). No heterogeneity of treatment effect was found in the subgroups, including diabetic patients and those presenting with 3-vessel disease.

Conclusions— In this pooled analysis of 4 randomized trials, PCI with stenting was associated with a long-term safety profile similar to that of CABG. However, as a result of persistently lower repeat revascularization rates in the CABG patients, overall major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates were significantly lower in the CABG group at 5 years.


 

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE


Related Article:

Clinical Summaries
Circulation 2008 118: 1113-1114. [Extract] [Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
T. A. Schwann, A. Zacharias, C. J. Riordan, S. J. Durham, A. S. Shah, and R. H. Habib
Sequential radial artery grafts for multivessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery: 10-year survival and angiography results.
Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2009; 88(1): 31 - 39.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
HeartHome page
N Kukreja, P W Serruys, B De Bruyne, A Colombo, C Macaya, G Richardt, J Fajadet, C Hamm, D Goedhart, N Macours, et al.
Sirolimus-eluting stents, bare metal stents or coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with multivessel disease including involvement of the proximal left anterior descending artery: analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies study part 2 (ARTS-II)
Heart, July 1, 2009; 95(13): 1061 - 1066.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill
The year in interventional cardiology.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 2, 2009; 53(22): 2080 - 2097.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ICVTSHome page
O. Soran, A. Manchanda, and S. Schueler
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease: a current perspective
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, June 1, 2009; 8(6): 666 - 671.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
HeartHome page
K. A A Fox
COURAGE to change practice? Revascularisation in patients with stable coronary artery disease
Heart, May 1, 2009; 95(9): 689 - 692.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NEJMHome page
P. W. Serruys, M.-C. Morice, A. P. Kappetein, A. Colombo, D. R. Holmes, M. J. Mack, E. Stahle, T. E. Feldman, M. van den Brand, E. J. Bass, et al.
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Severe Coronary Artery Disease
N. Engl. J. Med., March 5, 2009; 360(10): 961 - 972.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NEJMHome page
R. A. Lange and L. D. Hillis
Coronary Revascularization in Context
N. Engl. J. Med., March 5, 2009; 360(10): 1024 - 1026.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
C. R. Smith
Surgery, Not Percutaneous Revascularization, Is the Preferred Strategy for Patients With Significant Left Main Coronary Stenosis
Circulation, February 24, 2009; 119(7): 1013 - 1020.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll Cardiol IntvHome page
A. E. Rodriguez and R. Waksman
Sirolimus-Eluting Stents or Vascular Brachytherapy for In-Stent Restenosis After 3-Year Follow-Up of the SISR (Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Vascular Brachytherapy for In-Stent Restenosis) Trial: A Call for Caution?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., January 1, 2009; 2(1): 75 - 76.
[Full Text] [PDF]