Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of thijTexas Heart Institute JournalSee also Cardiovascular Diseases Journal in PMCSubscribeSubmissionsTHI Journal Website
Tex Heart Inst J. 2009; 36(5): 375–386.
PMCID: PMC2763449

The Comparative Efficacy of Percutaneous and Surgical Coronary Revascularization in 2009

A Review


Medical, percutaneous, and surgical therapies for coronary atherosclerotic disease are developing rapidly, with many recent breakthroughs in metabolic control, improvements in catheter and stent engineering, and advances in surgical technique. Treatment guidelines are still in their infancy and do not take into account several of these recent innovations. Consequently, determining the most appropriate treatment for many patients remains challenging. In this review, we examine the most recent revascularization guidelines, discuss important new data and trials comparing contemporary stent technology and coronary artery bypass surgery, and conclude with updated revascularization recommendations.

Key words: Coronary artery bypass/methods/mortality, coronary artery disease/therapy, coronary stenosis/therapy, drug-eluting stents, myocardial revascularization/methods/trends, percutaneous coronary intervention, retreatment

Coronary atherosclerotic disease (CAD) is the most common killer of Americans, causing half a million deaths in 2005.1 Although the prevalence of CAD climbed to 16.8 million in 2006, the mortality rate has declined, largely because of improvements in medical, surgical, and percutaneous therapies.1,2 Surgical revascularization by coronary artery bypass (CAB) was proved in the 1970s to be effective therapy for severe CAD. Since then, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with balloon angioplasty augmented by stent implantation has become the primary method to treat severe angina pectoris in patients with less diffuse CAD and to abort myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with unstable symptoms.

Because both surgical and percutaneous therapies are changing rapidly, determining the most appropriate treatment for many patients can be difficult. The use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) instead of bare-metal stents (BMSs) has reduced the rate of restenosis after PCI, and DESs are now used in most of the PCIs in the United States.3,4 New surgical techniques, including off-pump CAB (OPCAB) and the use of multiple arterial conduits, may reduce perioperative morbidity and improve long-term graft patency rates, respectively.5,6 Comparative data on PCI with DESs versus contemporary CAB are just now beginning to accumulate and have not yet been fully incorporated into the latest guidelines. Furthermore, the duration of follow-up in these studies does not allow a realistic comparison of procedural durability and protection from future events. In this review, we look briefly at the recent history of coronary revascularization, examine the most recent revascularization guidelines, discuss important new data and trials comparing PCI with DESs to CAB, and conclude with updated revascularization recommendations.

Contemporary History of Coronary Revascularization

A brief look back at the development of coronary revascularization is relevant, because support for many of the current guidelines is based on data from the last 3 decades. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study,7–10 the Coronary Artery Surgery Study,11–14 and the European Cardiac Surgery Study15 were landmark trials conducted during the 1970s and 1980s that together established the efficacy of CAB. Compared with initial medical therapy with the option of CAB in the future, CAB at the time of randomization provided superior relief of angina and reduced mortality rates in the highest-risk groups: patients with left main coronary artery stenosis greater than 50% or equivalent left main disease, patients with depressed left ventricular (LV) systolic function and either 3-vessel disease or 2-vessel disease involving the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), and patients with positive treadmill test results and either 3-vessel disease or 2-vessel disease involving the proximal LAD.7–15 A meta-analysis combining these 3 trials with 4 other randomized trials of similar design showed that CAB provides an absolute risk reduction in mortality rates of 5% at 5 years and 4% at 10 years. The benefit was seen primarily in the high-risk groups described above. In addition, the combined data suggest that the survival benefit extends to patients who have 3-vessel disease with normal LV ejection fractions (LVEFs).16

Percutaneous coronary intervention, first with balloon angioplasty alone and later with BMSs, was developed as a less invasive means of treating obstructive coronary disease. A meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials from the late 1980s to early 2000s summarized the outcomes of 5,019 patients who had single-vessel or multivessel CAD and were treated with PCI: either with balloon angioplasty alone or with BMSs, versus CAB. Survival rates at 10 years were similar for both groups—even in the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus. Angina relief at 5 years was more common after CAB (84%) than after PCI (79%; P < 0.001), but procedure-related strokes were slightly more frequent after CAB (1.2%) than after PCI (0.6%; P = 0.002). Repeat revascularization was substantially more common after PCI (absolute risk increase of 33% at 5 years; P < 0.001).17 A Cochrane review of randomized trials of PCI with BMSs, compared with CAB, revealed similar findings.18 The equivalent survival rates with PCI and CAB in these randomized trials is not surprising, because the populations studied were generally lower-risk patients with less to gain from revascularization. Unlike these randomized trials, several large-scale, long-term observational studies of patients with multivessel disease have suggested that CAB may provide a survival advantage over PCI.19–23

Most Recent Revascularization Guidelines

Recent practice guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) regarding revascularization were published before the results of trials comparing PCI with DESs to CAB were reported.24–26 Recommendations from the 2002 practice guidelines for chronic stable angina24 were unchanged in the 2007 update25 and generally match those from the unstable angina/non-ST-elevation MI guidelines from 200726 (Table I).

Table thumbnail
TABLE I. Levels of Recommendation for CAB and PCI According to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines

In 2009, a group of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and other healthcare providers and administrators collaborated to publish appropriateness criteria for revascularization in a variety of clinical situations. Coronary bypass was deemed appropriate for all presented scenarios of severe CAD that required revascularization. Percutaneous coronary intervention was rated appropriate for 2-vessel disease that involved proximal LAD regardless of LV function or diabetes. Those authors concluded that PCI in 3-vessel disease was of uncertain benefit but bordered on appropriate in patients without diabetes or depressed LV function.27 Lesion complexity, which can substantially affect the likelihood of obtaining a high-quality result with PCI, was not included in the scenarios, which is a limitation of these guidelines. The SYNTAX score (discussed later in this article) may be an effective tool for incorporating lesion complexity into decision-making about revascularization approaches.

Important Recent Advances in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Because they have drastically reduced the rate of restenosis and target lesion revascularization, DESs are arguably the most important advance in PCI in recent years. Restenosis after angioplasty is driven by 3 main mechanisms: elastic recoil, negative remodeling (vessel contracture), and neointimal hyperplasia.28–30 Bare-metal stents effectively prevent recoil and negative remodeling but may actually exacerbate neointimal hyperplasia.31–33 Drug-eluting stents release antiproliferative medications that inhibit in-stent neointimal hyperplasia, thereby countering all 3 mechanisms of restenosis.34 A meta-analysis found no significant difference in rates of death or MI in trials that involved 5,216 patients who were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 types of DES (sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting) or a BMS, with a 4-year follow-up. However, rates of target lesion revascularization were greatly reduced by both types of DES (sirolimus-eluting stent vs BMS, 7.8% vs 23.6%; P < 0.01; paclitaxel-eluting stent vs BMS, 10.1% vs 20%, P < 0.01).4 Later, a much larger network meta-analysis of 38 randomized trials and 18,023 patients with follow-up of up to 4 years produced similar findings.3

The initial randomized trials that led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of DESs were limited to single, previously untreated lesions less than 30 mm long, in vessels 2.5 to 3.75 mm in diameter. Subsequently, DESs have been shown in small trials and registries to be better than BMSs in unrestricted real-world use and for off-label indications.35,36 Limited data from subgroup analyses, small trials, and registries suggest that DESs are associated with less repeat revascularization than BMSs in small vessels, long lesions, chronic total occlusions, saphenous vein grafts (SVGs), patients with diabetes, and during primary PCI for acute MI.37–47

Stent thrombosis is a rare but dreaded complication of PCI with either BMSs or DESs and has an associated death rate of 31%.48 Initial studies of DESs versus BMSs used various definitions for stent thrombosis and, therefore, reported variable rates. A meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials involving 6,675 patients examined thrombosis rates as defined and reported by the individual trials; the results suggested that DESs led to a 4- to 5-fold increase in very late (>1 year after PCI) stent thrombosis than did BMSs, with 5 events per 1,000 DES recipients but no events in the BMS recipients.49 However, by excluding events that occurred after a repeat revascularization, the study was biased against DESs, whose recipients were less likely to need repeat revascularization. A more recent meta-analysis of randomized trials, which used patient-level data and the Academic Research Consortium definitions for stent thrombosis, revealed similar rates of definite or probable thromboses during the 4 years after PCI with DESs or BMSs (sirolimus-eluting stents vs BMSs, 1.5% vs 1.7%; P = 0.7; paclitaxel-eluting stents vs BMSs, 1.8% vs 1.4%; P = 0.52).48 Two other meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with a combined population of 23,284 also found similar rates of in-stent thrombosis within 4 years of PCI with either DESs or BMSs, but most of the thromboses in BMSs occurred during the 1st year, whereas thromboses continued to occur in DESs during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years.3,4

Determining the hemodynamic significance of a coronary stenosis by measuring the fractional flow reserve (FFR) of the stenotic artery is a valuable new technique that can improve interventional decisions and patient outcomes.50,51 Fractional flow reserve is measured with a coronary pressure wire after adenosine administration to achieve maximal coronary flow. The ratio of the pressure distal to the lesion to the aortic pressure equals the ratio of maximal blood flow in the stenotic artery to normal maximal flow and defines the FFR.52 The FFR in a normal coronary artery is 1; lower values indicate more functionally significant stenosis. In the DEFER study, patients with a single coronary stenosis of more than 50% but an FFR of 0.75 or greater had similar 5-year rates of composite death and acute MI whether PCI with BMS was performed at that time or was deferred (7.9% vs 3.3%; P = 0.21). The percentages of patients free of chest pain and needing target-vessel revascularization were also similar.50 In the FAME study, patients with multivessel disease and an indication for PCI were treated with DESs after randomization into 2 groups: 1 in which all angiographically significant lesions were stented, and 1 in which FFR was measured on all such lesions and only the ones with an FFR of 0.8 or less were stented. Patients in the FFR-guided arm of the study required fewer stents and at 1 year had less composite death, MI, and repeat revascularization than did patients in the angiography-guided arm (13.2% vs 18.3%; P = 0.02). These studies indicate, as would be expected, that the benefits of PCI are limited to vessels with hemodynamically significant stenoses. In addition, the results illustrate that visual assessment of angiographic stenosis severity can be improved with the addition of FFR measurement.

Important Recent Advances in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Although CAB is performed on older patients with more comorbidities and more complex CAD than ever before, CAB-related perioperative mortality rates continue to decline and are now reported to be 1% to 2%.6,53,54 Refinements in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), intraoperative myocardial preservation, and perioperative care, including intensive glucose control, all improve outcomes.5 Two important trends during the last decade have been an increase in the use of both OPCAB and multiple arterial bypass conduits.

During CPB, blood is exposed to artificial materials that can trigger a systemic inflammatory response, resulting in dysfunction in multiple organs.55 In an attempt to avoid this proinflammatory state, OPCAB is performed on a beating heart through a traditional median sternotomy without CPB. This can be done without cross-clamping the aorta, which avoids 1 possible contributing factor for perioperative stroke. Despite evidence associating OPCAB with reduced markers of inflammation,56,57 rates of the most important clinical endpoints, such as death, MI, and stroke, appear to be similar in randomized trials of OPCAB versus traditional CAB with CPB in patients from mixed populations.53,58 A meta-analysis of 37 such randomized controlled trials revealed no significant difference in 30-day mortality, MI, stroke, renal dysfunction, wound infection, or reintervention rates. However, OPCAB did reduce rates of atrial fibrillation, inotropic support, and respiratory infection, as well as ventilation time and length of intensive care unit and hospital stays.53 In contrast with these studies, a meta-analysis that included nonrandomized trials associated OPCAB with reductions in perioperative death (odds ratio [OR], 0.64), MI (OR, 0.58), and stroke (OR, 0.55) (P < 0.001 for all 3 outcomes).59 A scientific statement issued by the AHA in 2005 stated that definitive conclusions could not be drawn, but that trends in most studies suggest that OPCAB leads to less blood loss, less perioperative myocardial enzyme release, less early neurocognitive dysfunction, and less renal insufficiency than does traditional CAB.60 The latest meta-analysis (from 2009) of 10 randomized controlled trials found no significant difference in the rates of death, MI, stroke, and repeat revascularization associated with OPCAB versus CAB with CPB.58 Notwithstanding these mixed results, it seems likely that OPCAB provides some degree of protection for patients at highest risk for stroke, such as patients with atheromatous or calcified ascending aortas, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and those with renal insufficiency. Conventional CAB is still preferred for most patients without these features, patients with emergent or unstable conditions, and patients with complex CAD for which better exposure and cardioplegia are beneficial.5,6

The superiority of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) over the SVG as a conduit to the LAD has been clear since the 1980s, when the 10-year patency rates of LIMA grafts were shown to be 80% to 95%.61–66 Since then, surgeons have used a variety of arterial conduits with the hope of producing similar patency rates. Unfortunately, other arterial conduits appear to be less effective than the LIMA. This may be explained partly by factors intrinsic to the arteries themselves, the different flow requirements of the non-LAD bypass territories to which some of these conduits are frequently grafted, and the importance of higher flows for maintaining arterial bypass patency. Right internal mammary artery (RIMA) grafts have shown patency rates between those of SVGs and LIMA grafts.67,68 Using both IMAs in multivessel disease has been evaluated in multiple observational studies,69,70 and a meta-analysis of these observational data suggests that dual IMA grafts lead to better survival than do single IMA grafts and SVGs.71 However, not all studies have found this survival benefit,72 and data from randomized trials are lacking. Furthermore, enthusiasm for the RIMA has been diminished by reports of longer harvest times and a 2.5- to 5-fold higher risk of mediastinal infections.73 The radial artery appears more prone to spasm during harvesting and to thrombosis when faced with competitive flow after being grafted to less severely stenosed native vessels.5,6 Several observational studies and at least 1 randomized control trial have produced mixed results, providing no convincing evidence that radial artery grafts produce better short- to midterm results than do SVGs.74 In the future, studies with follow-ups extending into and beyond the period when SVGs begin to fail will help to clarify the merits of the radial artery conduit. One retrospective study found that 12-year survival was better after CAB with 2 or more arterial grafts (IMA or radial artery) than after CAB with a single IMA graft and SVGs.75 Total arterial OPCAB is being performed with excellent short- and midterm results as reported in observational studies (Table II), but its efficacy, compared with conventional CAB, has not yet been proved in randomized studies.76–81

Table thumbnail
TABLE II. Observational Studies of Total Arterial Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Drug-Eluting Stents versus Coronary Artery Bypass in Multivessel Disease

Comparative data are beginning to accumulate concerning the outcomes of PCI with DESs and of CAB with use of current techniques in patients with multivessel disease. Of the several observational studies that have been reported (Table III),82–90 most show that patients with multivessel CAD who are treated with DESs or CAB have similar rates of death, MI, and stroke, but repeat revascularization is more frequent after DES. Two studies showed lower mortality rates after CAB: one was the New York registry study,83 but the benifit was shown only after risk adjustments. The other was the overall population reported by Javaid and colleagues84; however, after adjustments, only the CAB patients with diabetes mellitus received the survival benefit. Most of these studies show that diabetic patients have worse outcomes regardless of treatment approach, and some but not all of these studies suggest that diabetic patients receive more benefit from CAB than from PCI with DESs.82,84–90 Two studies that analyzed subgroups with low LVEFs produced contradictory results: Hannan and associates83 found a survival benefit with CAB over DES placement, whereas Park and coworkers86 found no difference. The only study that looked at costs and time in the hospital showed that treatment with DESs was less expensive and required less time in the hospital than did CAB.89 All of these studies are limited by the potential for bias that is inherent in observational studies. In addition, most are single-center studies of relatively small size and short follow-up.

Table thumbnail
TABLE III. Observational Studies of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Drug-Eluting Stents versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

The SYNTAX trial, whose results were recently published, was the 1st large randomized controlled trial of PCI with DESs versus CAB in patients with severe CAD.91 This study included patients from 17 countries. Each patient had 3-vessel or left main coronary disease with either chest pain or documented ischemia. Exclusion criteria were limited to prior PCI or CAB, acute MI, and other indications for cardiac surgery. All patients' angiograms were reviewed by an interventional cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon. Patients who could be revascularized equally well with PCI or CAB were randomized 1:1 to PCI with TAXUS® Express® paclitaxel-eluting stents (Boston Scientific Corporation; Natick, Mass) or CAB. Patients deemed better treated by 1 approach than the other were entered into nested registries. The baseline characteristics of the 1,800 randomized patients were similar in both arms of the study and included diabetes mellitus in 25% of patients and congestive heart failure or LVEF of less than 0.30 in 2% to 5%. Patients in both groups had higher risk scores for PCI and CAB than did patients in most previous PCI-versus-CAB trials. The goal of revascularizing all vessels that were 1.5 mm in diameter or larger with 50% or greater stenosis led to a mean of more than 4 stents placed per patient in the PCI group, and 63% involved at least 1 bifurcation or trifurcation. The CAB group averaged 3 conduits per patient; 97% of cases involved at least 1 arterial conduit, and 15% were performed off-pump. Medical therapy was not controlled, and it differed between the 2 groups: the PCI patients received more aspirin, clopidogrel, statins, β-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, whereas the CAB patients more often received amiodarone and warfarin. At 12 months, the primary outcome of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization) occurred more frequently after PCI than after CAB (17.8% vs 12.4%; P = 0.002). However, this difference was driven by higher rates of repeat revascularization after PCI (13.5% vs 5.9%; P < 0.001); the rates of death and MI were similar between the 2 groups. Stroke occurred more often after CAB (2.2% vs 0.6%, P = 0.003). The rates of symptomatic graft occlusion after CAB and stent thrombosis after PCI were both approximately 3%.

A predictive tool that could help objectively identify the superior revascularization method, the SYNTAX score, was developed as part of the SYNTAX study. The score characterizes a patient's CAD with respect to the number of lesions and their functional impact, location, and complexity.92 In patients with SYNTAX scores of 33 or higher (indicating diffuse or complex CAD that is hard to treat percutaneously), the rate of MACCE was more than twice as high after PCI (23.4%) as after CAB (10.9%; P < 0.001). Patients with low or intermediate SYNTAX scores had similar rates of MACCE with either revascularization approach.

The limitations of this study included the variation in medical therapy between the 2 groups. More patients in the PCI group received medications that have been proved to reduce cardiovascular events, which may have biased the results in favor of PCI. In addition, relatively few women and patients with diabetes mellitus or heart failure were included, so the SYNTAX data may or may not be applicable to these important populations. Furthermore, 1 year of follow-up may not have been enough to reveal the full benefits of CAB; other studies, such as ERACI III,87 showed better outcomes with DES during the 1st year but relatively more benefit from CAB over a longer period. Finally, the goal of achieving total revascularization may have been too ambitious in light of the FFR data presented above, which suggest that treating intermediate stenoses medically produces similar or better outcomes than PCI with DESs.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Drug-Eluting Stents versus Coronary Artery Bypass in Left Main Coronary Disease

Coronary artery bypass surgery offers a clear survival advantage over medical therapy in patients with >50% stenosis in the left main coronary artery.16 Despite the lack of clear evidence for their long-term safety and efficacy, DESs are being used in many of these patients. A 2004 survey found that 21% of patients in North America and 26% of patients in Europe with left main disease were treated with PCI.93 Taggart and colleagues,94 who examined data from 7 different groups that used DESs for left main disease in 599 patients, summarized the outcomes as follows: in-hospital death averaged 2.4% (range, 0–11%), the immediate repeat revascularization rate was 2% (0–6%), and biochemical evidence of periprocedural MI was found in 6% of patients (0–9%). At a mean follow-up of 11 months, the mortality rate was 7% (range, 0–14%), and the repeat revascularization rate was 13% (2%–38%). The wide ranges of outcomes were probably due to the variety in patient selection, interventional techniques, and location and complexity of the disease. Outcomes appear to be much better when the disease is proximal and does not involve the distal bifurcation or trifurcation.95,96 In 2 registry studies that compared the outcomes of CAB versus PCI with DESs in patients with left main disease, both treatments produced similar 1-year mortality rates, but repeat revascularization was more frequent after PCI.97,98 To date, there has not been a large randomized controlled trial comparing CAB to PCI with DESs in left main CAD. The closest is the SYNTAX trial, in which subgroup analysis of patients with left main disease revealed similar 1-year rates of MACCE for PCI with DESs versus CAB (16% vs 14%; P = 0.44). More frequent repeat revascularizations were required after DES (12% vs 7%; P = 0.02), but more frequent strokes occurred after CAB (0.3% vs 2.7%; P = 0.01).91

Given the current data, CAB remains the standard of care for patients with left main stenosis. This treatment will likely continue to be the best option for most of these patients, because most left main disease is accompanied by other features that make PCI challenging (such as bifurcating or multivessel disease and heavy calcification). However, it seems that PCI with DESs can achieve reasonable results and is still an option for patients who are hemodynamically unstable or ineligible for CAB—especially those without distal bifurcating disease. Further randomized studies are warranted.

Predicting Risk from Comorbidities

Because revascularization can be achieved equally well with PCI or CAB in many patients, a reliable method of estimating a given patient's risk with each procedure would be helpful. Several risk prediction scores have been validated for CAB and PCI individually,99,100 but these have not been applied to both approaches concurrently. These scores frequently do not help one determine the risk-to-benefit ratio of a given procedure, because many of the same features that suggest high periprocedural risk also predict the most potential benefit (for example, LV dysfunction). In addition, risk scores rarely help determine the merits of 1 revascularization approach over the other, because many of the risk factors are shared (such as age, LV dysfunction, and urgency). However, risk scores based on complexity of CAD from a PCI standpoint, such as the ACC/AHA lesion classification system and the SYNTAX score, may not be subject to this limitation. The SYNTAX study described above showed that the SYNTAX score could define a group of patients whose MACCE rates were significantly higher after PCI than CAB,91 so this score could be a useful tool in guiding decisions about revascularization approach.

Do patients with certain comorbidities do better with 1 procedure or another? Answering this question with reasonable certainty would require large, prospective, randomized trials designed specifically to isolate the comorbidity in question; such studies generally have not been done. Most attempts to compare PCI and CAB outcomes in patients with particular risk factors or comorbidities have been retrospective, nonrandomized, subgroup analyses, which are limited by potential selection bias and by variations in baseline characteristics; these limitations make the validity of any conclusions questionable.

With these limitations in mind, the preponderance of evidence appears to provide weak support for the following statements: First, patients with severe pulmonary disease have particularly high perioperative mortality rates after CAB.101–103 Second, patients with diabetes mellitus have particularly high rates of repeat revascularization after PCI and may survive longer after surgery—particularly if the surgery involves a LIMA-to-LAD bypass.104–106 Third, patients with reduced LV systolic function may live longer after CAB than after PCI.15,107,108 Fourth, patients with dementia have a decreased rate of further cognitive decline after PCI than after CAB.109,110 The literature is mixed and indeterminate for patients with chronic kidney disease.111–114 Several other clinical situations and factors that may affect the choice of 1 approach over another are listed in Table IV.

Table thumbnail
TABLE IV. Factors that May Affect Choice of PCI versus CAB


In our current approach (Fig. 1), we recommend CAB for most patients with the highest-risk CAD (that is, the most myocardium at risk and the least reserve), regardless of symptoms, because of CAB's proven survival benefit in this population. For patients with less severe CAD, symptom severity and noninvasive test results are used to stratify patients into 1 of 2 groups: those who will benefit from immediate revascularization and those in whom an initial trial of aggressive medical therapy alone may be safely attempted. In patients without the highest-risk CAD who require revascularization because of unacceptable symptoms, noninvasive test results indicating high risk, or failure of medical therapy, PCI with DESs and CAB appear to result in similar rates of death and MI. Therefore, the choice depends largely upon how effectively the lesions can be treated with PCI, and upon the patient's feelings about the temporary disability and the slightly increased stroke risk associated with CAB versus the increased risk of repeat revascularization with PCI. A patient with 3-vessel disease due to 3 focal stenoses, who is able to take clopidogrel and is willing to accept the risk of repeat revascularization, will probably have excellent results with PCI—especially if FFR measurement reveals that 1 lesion is not hemodynamically significant and can therefore be left alone. On the other hand, a patient with 1- or 2-vessel disease involving chronic total occlusions, bifurcations, or highly calcified or angulated lesions may have better results with CAB. Regardless of the revascularization approach taken, the underlying atherosclerotic disease process continues, and aggressive medical management of risk factors is imperative.

figure 4FF1
Fig. 1 Our revascularization algorithm.


We thank Stephen N. Palmer, PhD, ELS, who assisted with the editing of this report.


Address for reprints: James M. Wilson, MD, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital (MC 1-133), 6720 Bertner Ave., Room P-322, Houston TX 77030 E-mail: moc.hels@nosliwj

Disclosure: Dr. Wilson has received research funding from the Cordis Corporation to record and examine the outcomes of patients after surgical and percutaneous therapy.


1. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams R, Carnethon M, De Simone G, Ferguson TB, Flegal K, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee [published erratum appears in Circulation 2009;119(3):e182]. Circulation 2009;119(3):480–6. [PubMed]
2. Ford ES, Ajani UA, Croft JB, Critchley JA, Labarthe DR, Kottke TE, et al. Explaining the decrease in U.S. deaths from coronary disease, 1980–2000. N Engl J Med 2007;356(23): 2388–98. [PubMed]
3. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, Kastrati A, Morice MC, Schomig A, et al. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet 2007;370(9591):937–48. [PubMed]
4. Stone GW, Moses JW, Ellis SG, Schofer J, Dawkins KD, Morice MC, et al. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med 2007;356(10): 998–1008. [PubMed]
5. Barner HB. Operative treatment of coronary atherosclerosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;85(4):1473–82. [PubMed]
6. Kobayashi J. Current status of coronary artery bypass grafting. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;56(6):260–7. [PubMed]
7. Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery for stable angina. The Veterans Administration Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 1984;311(21):1333–9. [PubMed]
8. Eighteen-year follow-up in the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for stable angina. The VA Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. Circulation 1992;86(1):121–30. [PubMed]
9. Peduzzi P, Kamina A, Detre K. Twenty-two-year follow-up in the VA Cooperative Study of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Stable Angina. Am J Cardiol 1998;81(12):1393–9. [PubMed]
10. Detre KM, Takaro T, Hultgren H, Peduzzi P. Long-term mortality and morbidity results of the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation 1985;72(6 Pt 2):V84–9. [PubMed]
11. Alderman EL, Bourassa MG, Cohen LS, Davis KB, Kaiser GG, Killip T, et al. Ten-year follow-up of survival and myocardial infarction in the randomized Coronary Artery Surgery Study. Circulation 1990;82(5):1629–46. [PubMed]
12. Chaitman BR, Fisher LD, Bourassa MG, Davis K, Rogers WJ, Maynard C, et al. Effect of coronary bypass surgery on survival patterns in subsets of patients with left main coronary artery disease. Report of the Collaborative Study in Coronary Artery Surgery (CASS). Am J Cardiol 1981;48(4):765–77. [PubMed]
13. Passamani E, Davis KB, Gillespie MJ, Killip T. A randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival of patients with a low ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 1985;312(26):1665–71. [PubMed]
14. Killip T, Passamani E, Davis K. Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery. Eight years follow-up and survival in patients with reduced ejection fraction. Circulation 1985;72(6 Pt 2):V102–9. [PubMed]
15. Varnauskas E. Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized European Coronary Surgery Study. N Engl J Med 1988;319(6):332–7. [PubMed]
16. Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, Fisher LD, Takaro T, Kennedy JW, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration [published erratum appears in Lancet 1994;344(8934):1446]. Lancet 1994;344(8922):563–70. [PubMed]
17. Bravata DM, Gienger AL, McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Perez MV, Varghese R, et al. Systematic review: the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Intern Med 2007;147(10):703–16. [PubMed]
18. Bakhai A, Hill RA, Dundar Y, Dickson R, Walley T. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for people with stable angina or acute coronary syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(1):CD004588. [PubMed]
19. Kohsaka S, Goto M, Virani S, Lee VV, Aoki N, Elayda MA, et al. Long-term clinical outcome of coronary artery stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multiple-vessel disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;136(2):500–6. [PubMed]
20. Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP, Schneider JP, Topol EJ, Lauer MS. Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation 2004;109(19):2290–5. [PubMed]
21. Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G, Jones RH, Ryan TJ, Bennett E, et al. Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med 2005;352 (21):2174–83. [PubMed]
22. Malenka DJ, Leavitt BJ, Hearne MJ, Robb JF, Baribeau YR, Ryan TJ, et al. Comparing long-term survival of patients with multivessel coronary disease after CABG or PCI: analysis of BARI-like patients in northern New England. Circulation 2005;112(9 Suppl):I371–6. [PubMed]
23. van Domburg RT, Takkenberg JJ, Noordzij LJ, Saia F, van Herwerden LA, Serruys PW, Bogers AJ. Late outcome after stenting or coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: a single-center matched-propensity controlled cohort study. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79(5):1563–9. [PubMed]
24. Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K, Daley J, Deedwania PC, Douglas JS, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with chronic stable angina–summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41(1):159–68. [PubMed]
25. Fraker TD Jr, Fihn SD, Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K, Daley J, et al. 2007 chronic angina focused update of the ACC/AHA 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Writing Group to develop the focused update of the 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina [published erratum appears in J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50(23):e1]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50(23):2264–74. [PubMed]
26. Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, Bridges CR, Califf RM, Casey DE Jr, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine [published erratum appears in J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51(9):974]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50(7):e1-e157. [PubMed]
27. Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology: Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography [published erratum appears in Circulation 2009;119(15):e488]. Circulation 2009;119(9): 1330–52. [PubMed]
28. Austin GE, Ratliff NB, Hollman J, Tabei S, Phillips DF. Intimal proliferation of smooth muscle cells as an explanation for recurrent coronary artery stenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985;6(2): 369–75. [PubMed]
29. Schwartz RS, Edwards WD, Huber KC, Antoniades LC, Bailey KR, Camrud AR, et al. Coronary restenosis: prospects for solution and new perspectives from a porcine model. Mayo Clin Proc 1993;68(1):54–62. [PubMed]
30. Schwartz RS, Holmes DR Jr, Topol EJ. The restenosis paradigm revisited: an alternative proposal for cellular mechanisms. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;20(5):1284–93. [PubMed]
31. Brophy JM, Belisle P, Joseph L. Evidence for use of coronary stents. A hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2003;138(10):777–86. [PubMed]
32. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, Schatz RA, Savage MP, Penn I, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1994;331(8):496–501. [PubMed]
33. Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, Macaya C, Rutsch W, Heyndrickx G, et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. N Engl J Med 1994;331(8):489–95. [PubMed]
34. Sousa JE, Costa MA, Abizaid AC, Rensing BJ, Abizaid AS, Tanajura LF, et al. Sustained suppression of neointimal proliferation by sirolimus-eluting stents: one-year angiographic and intravascular ultrasound follow-up. Circulation 2001;104(17): 2007–11. [PubMed]
35. Abbott JD, Voss MR, Nakamura M, Cohen HA, Selzer F, Kip KE, et al. Unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in routine clinical practice: findings from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50(21):2029–36. [PubMed]
36. Marroquin OC, Selzer F, Mulukutla SR, Williams DO, Vlachos HA, Wilensky RL, et al. A comparison of bare-metal and drug-eluting stents for off-label indications. N Engl J Med 2008;358(4):342–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Ardissino D, Cavallini C, Bramucci E, Indolfi C, Marzocchi A, Manari A, et al. Sirolimus-eluting vs uncoated stents for prevention of restenosis in small coronary arteries: a randomized trial. JAMA 2004;292(22):2727–34. [PubMed]
38. Degertekin M, Arampatzis CA, Lemos PA, Saia F, Hoye A, Daemen J, et al. Very long sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for de novo coronary lesions. Am J Cardiol 2004;93(7):826–9. [PubMed]
39. Migliorini A, Moschi G, Vergara R, Parodi G, Carrabba N, Antoniucci D. Drug-eluting stent-supported percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total coronary occlusion. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;67(3):344–8. [PubMed]
40. Nakamura S, Muthusamy TS, Bae JH, Cahyadi YH, Udayachalerm W, Tresukosol D. Impact of sirolimus-eluting stent on the outcome of patients with chronic total occlusions. Am J Cardiol 2005;95(2):161–6. [PubMed]
41. Pasceri V, Patti G, Speciale G, Pristipino C, Richichi G, Di Sciascio G. Meta-analysis of clinical trials on use of drug-eluting stents for treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2007;153(5):749–54. [PubMed]
42. Sabate M, Jimenez-Quevedo P, Angiolillo DJ, Gomez-Hospital JA, Alfonso F, Hernandez-Antolin R, et al. Randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent versus standard stent for percutaneous coronary revascularization in diabetic patients: the diabetes and sirolimus-eluting stent (DIABETES) trial. Circulation 2005;112(14):2175–83. [PubMed]
43. Schampaert E, Cohen EA, Schluter M, Reeves F, Traboulsi M, Title LM, et al. The Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries (C-SIRIUS). J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43(6):1110–5. [PubMed]
44. Schofer J, Schluter M, Gershlick AH, Wijns W, Garcia E, Schampaert E, Breithardt G. Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS). Lancet 2003;362(9390):1093–9. [PubMed]
45. Werner GS, Krack A, Schwarz G, Prochnau D, Betge S, Figulla HR. Prevention of lesion recurrence in chronic total coronary occlusions by paclitaxel-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44(12):2301–6. [PubMed]
46. Kumbhani DJ, Bavry AA, Kamdar AR, Helton TJ, Bhatt DL. The effect of drug-eluting stents on intermediate angiographic and clinical outcomes in diabetic patients: insights from randomized clinical trials. Am Heart J 2008;155(4):640–7. [PubMed]
47. Ge L, Iakovou I, Sangiorgi GM, Chieffo A, Melzi G, Cosgrave J, et al. Treatment of saphenous vein graft lesions with drug-eluting stents: immediate and midterm outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45(7):989–94. [PubMed]
48. Mauri L, Hsieh WH, Massaro JM, Ho KK, D'Agostino R, Cutlip DE. Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med 2007;356(10):1020–9. [PubMed]
49. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Helton TJ, Borek PP, Mood GR, Bhatt DL. Late thrombosis of drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Am J Med 2006;119 (12):1056–61. [PubMed]
50. Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, Boersma E, Bech JW, van't Veer M, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49(21):2105–11. [PubMed]
51. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van't Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009;360(3):213–24. [PubMed]
52. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, Van Der Voort PH, Bonnier HJ, Bartunek J, Koolen JJ. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med 1996;334(26):1703–8. [PubMed]
53. Cheng DC, Bainbridge D, Martin JE, Novick RJ; Evidence-Based Perioperative Clinical Outcomes Research Group. Does off-pump coronary artery bypass reduce mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization when compared with conventional coronary artery bypass? A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Anesthesiology 2005;102(1):188–203. [PubMed]
54. Nalysnyk L, Fahrbach K, Reynolds MW, Zhao SZ, Ross S. Adverse events in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) trials: a systematic review and analysis. Heart 2003;89(7):767–72. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
55. Wan S, LeClerc JL, Vincent JL. Inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass: mechanisms involved and possible therapeutic strategies. Chest 1997;112(3):676–92. [PubMed]
56. Matata BM, Sosnowski AW, Galinanes M. Off-pump bypass graft operation significantly reduces oxidative stress and inflammation. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69(3):785–91. [PubMed]
57. Okubo N, Hatori N, Ochi M, Tanaka S. Comparison of m-RNA expression for inflammatory mediators in leukocytes between on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;9(1):43–9. [PubMed]
58. Feng ZZ, Shi J, Zhao XW, Xu ZF. Meta-analysis of on-pump and off-pump coronary arterial revascularization [published erratum appears in Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87(6):2008]. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87(3):757–65. [PubMed]
59. Reston JT, Tregear SJ, Turkelson CM. Meta-analysis of short-term and mid-term outcomes following off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76(5): 1510–5. [PubMed]
60. Sellke FW, DiMaio JM, Caplan LR, Ferguson TB, Gardner TJ, Hiratzka LF, et al. Comparing on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: numerous studies but few conclusions: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association council on cardiovascular surgery and anesthesia in collaboration with the interdisciplinary working group on quality of care and outcomes research. Circulation 2005; 111(21):2858–64. [PubMed]
61. Lytle BW, Loop FD, Cosgrove DM, Ratliff NB, Easley K, Taylor PC. Long-term (5 to 12 years) serial studies of internal mammary artery and saphenous vein coronary bypass grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1985;89(2):248–58. [PubMed]
62. Singh RN, Sosa JA, Green GE. Long-term fate of the internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1983;86(3):359–63. [PubMed]
63. Tector AJ, Schmahl TM, Janson B, Kallies JR, Johnson G. The internal mammary artery graft. Its longevity after coronary bypass. JAMA 1981;246(19):2181–3. [PubMed]
64. Barner HB, Swartz MT, Mudd JG, Tyras DH. Late patency of the internal mammary artery as a coronary bypass conduit. Ann Thorac Surg 1982;34(4):408–12. [PubMed]
65. Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, Stewart RW, Goormastic M, Williams GW, et al. Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med 1986;314(1):1–6. [PubMed]
66. Grondin CM, Campeau L, Lesperance J, Enjalbert M, Bourassa MG. Comparison of late changes in internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafts in two consecutive series of patients 10 years after operation. Circulation 1984;70(3 Pt 2): I208–12. [PubMed]
67. Shah PJ, Durairaj M, Gordon I, Fuller J, Rosalion A, Seevanayagam S, et al. Factors affecting patency of internal thoracic artery graft: clinical and angiographic study in 1434 symptomatic patients operated between 1982 and 2002. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;26(1):118–24. [PubMed]
68. Shah PJ, Bui K, Blackmore S, Gordon I, Hare DL, Fuller J, et al. Has the in situ right internal thoracic artery been overlooked? An angiographic study of the radial artery, internal thoracic arteries and saphenous vein graft patencies in symptomatic patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;27(5):870–5. [PubMed]
69. Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Sabik JF, Houghtaling P, Loop FD, Cosgrove DM. The effect of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting on survival during 20 postoperative years. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78(6):2005–14. [PubMed]
70. Burfeind WR Jr, Glower DD, Wechsler AS, Tuttle RH, Shaw LK, Harrell FE Jr, Rankin JS. Single versus multiple internal mammary artery grafting for coronary artery bypass: 15-year follow-up of a clinical practice trial. Circulation 2004;110(11 Suppl 1):II27–35. [PubMed]
71. Taggart DP, D'Amico R, Altman DG. Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet 2001;358(9285):870–5. [PubMed]
72. Bakaeen FG, Chu D, Dhaliwal AS, Bozkurt B, Wang XL, Coselli JS, et al. Does the use of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts impact survival of veterans undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery? Am J Surg 2008;196(5):726–31. [PubMed]
73. Toumpoulis IK, Theakos N, Dunning J. Does bilateral internal thoracic artery harvest increase the risk of mediastinitis? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2007;6(6):787–91. [PubMed]
74. Nezic DG, Knezevic AM, Milojevic PS, Dukanovic BP, Jovic MD, Borzanovic MD, Nezkovic AN. The fate of the radial artery conduit in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery [published erratum appears in Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;30(6):956]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;30(2):341–6. [PubMed]
75. Zacharias A, Schwann TA, Riordan CJ, Durham SJ, Shah AS, Habib RH. Late results of conventional versus all-arterial revascularization based on internal thoracic and radial artery grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87(1):19–26.e2. [PubMed]
76. Navia D, Vrancic M, Vaccarino G, Piccinini F, Raich H, Florit S, Thierer J. Total arterial off-pump coronary revascularization using bilateral internal thoracic arteries in triple-vessel disease: surgical technique and clinical outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86(2):524–30. [PubMed]
77. Kim WS, Lee J, Lee YT, Sung K, Yang JH, Jun TG, Park PW. Total arterial revascularization in triple-vessel disease with off-pump and aortic no-touch technique. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 86(6):1861–5. [PubMed]
78. Fukui T, Takanashi S, Hosoda Y, Suehiro S. Total arterial myocardial revascularization using composite and sequential grafting with the off-pump technique. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80(2):579–85. [PubMed]
79. Mariani MA, D'Alfonso A, Grandjean JG. Total arterial off-pump coronary surgery: time to change our habits? Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78(5):1591–7. [PubMed]
80. Tagusari O, Kobayashi J, Bando K, Niwaya K, Nakajima H, Nakatani T, et al. Total arterial off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for revascularization of the total coronary system: clinical outcome and angiographic evaluation. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78(4):1304–11. [PubMed]
81. Kobayashi J, Tagusari O, Bando K, Niwaya K, Nakajima H, Ishida M, et al. Total arterial off-pump coronary revascularization with only internal thoracic artery and composite radial artery grafts. Heart Surg Forum 2002;6(1):30–7. [PubMed]
82. Daemen J, Kuck KH, Macaya C, LeGrand V, Vrolix M, Carrie D, et al. Multivessel coronary revascularization in patients with and without diabetes mellitus: 3-year follow-up of the ARTS-II (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study-Part II) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52(24):1957–67. [PubMed]
83. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, Culliford AT, Gold JP, Smith CR, et al. Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2008;358 (4):331–41. [PubMed]
84. Javaid A, Steinberg DH, Buch AN, Corso PJ, Boyce SW, Pinto Slottow TL, et al. Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 2007;116(11 Suppl):I200–6. [PubMed]
85. Kukreja N, Serruys PW, De Bruyne B, Colombo A, Macaya C, Richardt G, 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 2009;95(13):1061–6. [PubMed]
86. Park DW, Yun SC, Lee SW, Kim YH, Lee CW, Hong MK, et al. Long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation versus coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 2008;117(16):2079–86. [PubMed]
87. Rodriguez AE, Maree AO, Mieres J, Berrocal D, Grinfeld L, Fernandez-Pereira C, et al. Late loss of early benefit from drug-eluting stents when compared with bare-metal stents and coronary artery bypass surgery: 3 years follow-up of the ERACI III registry. Eur Heart J 2007;28(17):2118–25. [PubMed]
88. Serruys PW, Daemen J, Morice MC, de Bruyne B, Colombo A, Macaya C, et al. Three-year follow-up of the ARTS-II–sirolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 2007;3: 450–9. [PubMed]
89. Varani E, Balducelli M, Vecchi G, Aquilina M, Maresta A. Comparison of multiple drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary intervention and surgical revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: one-year clinical results and total treatment costs. J Invasive Cardiol 2007;19(11): 469–75. [PubMed]
90. Yang JH, Gwon HC, Cho SJ, Hahn JY, Choi JH, Choi SH, et al. Comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting with drug-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;85(1):65–70. [PubMed]
91. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009;360(10):961–72. [PubMed]
92. Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, Morice MC, Colombo A, Dawkins K, et al. The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 2005;1:219–27. [PubMed]
93. Kappetein AP, Dawkins KD, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Mack MJ, Russell ME, et al. Current percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting practices for three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease. Insights from the SYNTAX run-in phase. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29(4): 486–91. [PubMed]
94. Taggart DP, Kaul S, Boden WE, Ferguson TB Jr, Guyton RA, Mack MJ, et al. Revascularization for unprotected left main stem coronary artery stenosis stenting or surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51(9):885–92. [PubMed]
95. Valgimigli M, Malagutti P, Rodriguez-Granillo GA, Garcia-Garcia HM, Polad J, Tsuchida K, et al. Distal left main coronary disease is a major predictor of outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention in the drug-eluting stent era: an integrated clinical and angiographic analysis based on the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) and Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registries. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47(8): 1530–7. [PubMed]
96. Chieffo A, Park SJ, Valgimigli M, Kim YH, Daemen J, Sheiban I, et al. Favorable long-term outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation in nonbifurcation lesions that involve unprotected left main coronary artery: a multicenter registry. Circulation 2007;116(2):158–62. [PubMed]
97. Chieffo A, Morici N, Maisano F, Bonizzoni E, Cosgrave J, Montorfano M, et al. Percutaneous treatment with drug-eluting stent implantation versus bypass surgery for unprotected left main stenosis: a single-center experience. Circulation 2006; 113(21):2542–7. [PubMed]
98. Palmerini T, Marzocchi A, Marrozzini C, Ortolani P, Saia F, Savini C, et al. Comparison between coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (the Bologna Registry). Am J Cardiol 2006;98(1):54–9. [PubMed]
99. Singh M, Lennon RJ, Holmes DR Jr, Bell MR, Rihal CS. Correlates of procedural complications and a simple integer risk score for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40(3):387–93. [PubMed]
100. Nashef SA, Roques F, Michel P, Gauducheau E, Lemeshow S, Salamon R. European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999;16(1):9–13. [PubMed]
101. Leavitt BJ, Ross CS, Spence B, Surgenor SD, Olmstead EM, Clough RA, et al. Long-term survival of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation 2006;114(1 Suppl):I430–4. [PubMed]
102. Medalion B, Katz MG, Cohen AJ, Hauptman E, Sasson L, Schachner A. Long-term beneficial effect of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with COPD. Chest 2004;125(1): 56–62. [PubMed]
103. Samuels LE, Kaufman MS, Morris RJ, Promisloff R, Brockman SK. Coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with COPD. Chest 1998;113(4):878–82. [PubMed]
104. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators [published erratum appears in N Engl J Med 1997;336(2):147]. N Engl J Med 1996;335(4):217–25. [PubMed]
105. Influence of diabetes on 5-year mortality and morbidity in a randomized trial comparing CABG and PTCA in patients with multivessel disease: the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). Circulation 1997;96(6):1761–9. [PubMed]
106. Hoffman SN, TenBrook JA, Wolf MP, Pauker SG, Salem DN, Wong JB. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: one- to eight-year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41(8):1293–304. [PubMed]
107. Phillips HR, O'Connor CM, Rogers J. Revascularization for heart failure. Am Heart J 2007;153(4 Suppl):65–73. [PubMed]
108. Shanmugam G, Legare JF. Revascularization for ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Curr Opin Cardiol 2008;23(2):148–52. [PubMed]
109. Lee TA, Wolozin B, Weiss KB, Bednar MM. Assessment of the emergence of Alzheimer's disease following coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Alzheimers Dis 2005;7(4):319–24. [PubMed]
110. Raja PV, Blumenthal JA, Doraiswamy PM. Cognitive deficits following coronary artery bypass grafting: prevalence, prognosis, and therapeutic strategies. CNS Spectr 2004;9(10):763–72. [PubMed]
111. Fujimoto Y, Ishiwata S, Dohi T, Masuda J, Fujimoto H, Mitani H, et al. Long-term prognosis after coronary revascularization in patients with end-stage renal disease on dialysis: comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting [in Japanese]. J Cardiol 2007;50 (1):11–20. [PubMed]
112. Ivens K, Gradaus F, Heering P, Schoebel FC, Klein M, Schulte HD, et al. Myocardial revascularization in patients with end-stage renal disease: comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass grafting. Int Urol Nephrol 2001;32(4):717–23. [PubMed]
113. Szczech LA, Reddan DN, Owen WF, Califf R, Racz M, Jones RH, Hannan EL. Differential survival after coronary revascularization procedures among patients with renal insufficiency. Kidney Int 2001;60(1):292–9. [PubMed]
114. Saw J, Levin A, Gin K. Coronary artery disease in chronic kidney disease patients: assessing the evidence for diagnosis, screening and revascularization. Can J Cardiol 2004;20(8): 807–13. [PubMed]

Articles from Texas Heart Institute Journal are provided here courtesy of Texas Heart Institute