Published Online
on July 7, 2008

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 22, 2008

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 118/4/381    most recent CIRCULATIONAHA.107.739144v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Booth, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Booth, J. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Angioplasty Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Coronary Artery Disease Related Collections Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents CV surgery: coronary artery disease Related Article

Submitted on October 15, 2007
Accepted on April 23, 2008

Randomized, Controlled Trial of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease. Six-Year Follow-Up From the Stent or Surgery Trial (SoS)

Jean Booth MSc, Tim Clayton MSc, John Pepper MChir, FRCS, Fiona Nugara BSc, Marcus Flather MBBS, FRCP, Ulrich Sigwart MD, FRCP, Rodney H. Stables DM, FRCP^*, on Behalf of the SoS Investigators

From the Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit (J.B., F.N., M.F.), and the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery (J.P.), Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (T.C.), London, United Kingdom; National Heart and Lung Institute (M.F.), Imperial College, London, United Kingdom; Université de Genève (U.S.), Geneva, Switzerland; and Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool (R.H.S.), Liverpool, United Kingdom.

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rod.stables{at}ctc.nhs.uk.

Background—The Stent or Surgery Trial is a randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with multivessel disease. Initial results at a median follow-up of 2 years showed a survival advantage for patients randomized to CABG. This article reports survival outcome at a median follow-up of 6 years.

Methods and Results—A total of 988 (n=488 percutaneous coronary intervention, n=500 CABG) patients were randomized at 53 centers during the period from 1996 to 1999. Investigators established survival status from hospital or community medical records or national databases or by direct contact with patients and their relatives. All-cause mortality was compared with hazard ratios and confidence intervals calculated from Cox proportional hazards models. Prespecified subgroup analyses for diabetes mellitus, angina grade, and angiographic severity of coronary disease at baseline were performed with tests for interaction. At a median follow-up of 6 years, 53 patients (10.9%) died in the percutaneous coronary intervention group compared with 34 (6.8%) in the CABG group (hazard ratio 1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 2.55, P=0.022). Little evidence was found that the treatment effect on mortality differed between subgroups according to baseline angina grade (interaction test P=0.52), the severity of coronary disease (P=0.92), or diabetic status (P=0.15).

Conclusions—At a median follow-up of 6 years, a continuing survival advantage was observed for patients managed with CABG, which is not consistent with results from other stent-versus-CABG studies.

Key words: trials • stents • angioplasty • coronary disease • mortality • surgery

Related Article:

Clinical Summaries
Circulation 2008 118: 321-322. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Kumar and C. P. Cannon Acute Coronary Syndromes: Diagnosis and Management, Part II Mayo Clin. Proc., November 1, 2009; 84(11): 1021 - 1036. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. A. Tran, S. D. Barnett, S. L. Hunt, A. Chon, and N. Ad The effect of previous coronary artery stenting on short- and intermediate-term outcome after surgical revascularization in patients with diabetes mellitus. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2009; 138(2): 316 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				Y. Li, Z. Zheng, B. Xu, S. Zhang, W. Li, R. Gao, and S. Hu Comparison of Drug-Eluting Stents and Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Multivessel Coronary Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up Results From a Single Institution Circulation, April 21, 2009; 119(15): 2040 - 2050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				J. Daemen, E. Boersma, M. Flather, J. Booth, R. Stables, A. Rodriguez, G. Rodriguez-Granillo, W. A. Hueb, P. A. Lemos, and P. W. Serruys 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 Circulation, September 9, 2008; 118(11): 1146 - 1154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Hlatky and D. M. Bravata Stents or Surgery?: New Data on the Comparative Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Circulation, July 22, 2008; 118(4): 325 - 327. [Full Text] [PDF]