PDF herunterladen
Int J Angiol 2021; 30(03): 221-227
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735238
Review Article

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

Ian C. Glenn 
1   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery; Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute; Cleveland Clinic; Cleveland, Ohio
,
Gabriele M. Iacona
2   Medstar Health Cardiac Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Abeel A. Mangi
2   Medstar Health Cardiac Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia
› Institutsangaben Funding G.M. Iacona, I.C. Glenn, and A.A. Mangi did not receive any sources of funding related to this manuscript.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

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.

Keywords

coronary artery - PCI - stent - cardiac surgery - cardiac catheterization - cardiovascular disease - myocardial infarction


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. August 2021

© 2021. International College of Angiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR. et al; ISCHEMIA Research Group. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (15) 1395-1407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Guo MH, Nantsios A, Ruel M. Appropriate therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a review of literature and the implication of the International Study of Comparative Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial. Curr Opin Cardiol 2020; 35 (06) 658-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J. et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60 (24) e44-e164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS. et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55 (05) 432-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA. et al; FREEDOM Trial Investigators. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012; 367 (25) 2375-2384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Dangas GD. et al; FREEDOM Follow-On Study Investigators. Long-term survival following multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes: the FREEDOM follow-on study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73 (06) 629-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kamalesh M, Sharp TG, Tang XC. et al; VA CARDS Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in United States veterans with diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61 (08) 808-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rodriguez AE, Baldi J, Fernández Pereira C. et al; ERACI II Investigators. Five-year follow-up of the Argentine randomized trial of coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II). J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46 (04) 582-588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Investigators TS. SoS Investigators. Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360 (9338): 965-970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Booth J, Clayton T, Pepper J. et al; SoS Investigators. 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). Circulation 2008; 118 (04) 381-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garg S. et al; ARTS II Investigators. 5-year clinical outcomes of the ARTS II (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study II) of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55 (11) 1093-1101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Serruys PW, Morice M-C, Kappetein AP. et al; SYNTAX Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (10) 961-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW. et al; SYNTAX Extended Survival Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet 2019; 394 (10206): 1325-1334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Park S-J, Ahn J-M, Kim Y-H. et al; BEST Trial Investigators. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (13) 1204-1212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Daemen J, Boersma E, Flather M. et al. 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 2008; 118 (11) 1146-1154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Al Ali J, Franck C, Filion KB, Eisenberg MJ. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with first-generation drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7 (05) 497-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sipahi I, Akay MH, Dagdelen S, Blitz A, Alhan C. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term mortality and morbidity in multivessel disease: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the arterial grafting and stenting era. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174 (02) 223-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lee CW, Ahn J-M, Cavalcante R. et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery versus drug-eluting stent implantation for left main or multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (24) 2481-2489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J. et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2018; 391 (10124): 939-948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Verdoia M, Barbieri L, Kedhi E, Suryapranata H, De Luca G. Percutaneous versus surgical revascularization for left main or multivessel coronary artery disease: results from a large-scale meta-analysis in the era of drug-eluting stents. Angiology 2018; 69 (09) 812-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Athappan G, Vinodhkumaradithyaa A, Srinivasan M, Jeyaseelan L, Ponniah T. Meta-analysis of 5-year outcomes of CABG vs PCI with stenting in patients with multivessel disease. Minerva Cardioangiol 2008; 56 (05) 453-460
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fanari Z, Weiss SA, Zhang W, Sonnad SS, Weintraub WS. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: Meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2015; 16 (02) 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Smit Y, Vlayen J, Koppenaal H, Eefting F, Kappetein AP, Mariani MA. Percutaneous coronary invervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 149 (03) 831-8.e1 , 13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Benedetto U, Gaudino M, Ng C. et al. Coronary surgery is superior to drug eluting stents in multivessel disease. Systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 2016; 210: 19-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chang M, Ahn J-M, Lee CW. et al. Long-term mortality after coronary revascularization in nondiabetic patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68 (01) 29-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gaudino M, Hameed I, Farkouh ME. et al. Overall and cause-specific mortality in randomized clinical trials comparing percutaneous interventions with coronary bypass surgery: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180 (12) 1638-1646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM. et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet 2009; 373 (9670): 1190-1197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 D'Ascenzo F, Barbero U, Moretti C. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for stable angina: meta-regression of randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2014; 38 (01) 51-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Takagi H, Kawai N, Umemoto T. Meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials on long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for multivessel coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 2008; 101 (09) 1259-1262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Benedetto U, Melina G, Angeloni E. et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting versus drug-eluting stents in multivessel coronary disease. A meta-analysis on 24,268 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009; 36 (04) 611-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 From AM, Al Badarin FJ, Cha SS, Rihal CS. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of data from the ARTS II, CARDia, ERACI III, and SYNTAX studies and systematic review of observational data. EuroIntervention 2010; 6 (02) 269-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mina GS, Watti H, Soliman D. et al. Long term outcomes of new generation drug eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel and/or left main coronary artery disease. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2018; 19 (06) 671-678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Tong BC, Huber JC, Ascheim DD. et al. Weighting composite endpoints in clinical trials: essential evidence for the heart team. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 94 (06) 1908-1913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Verma S, Farkouh ME, Yanagawa B. et al. Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2013; 1 (04) 317-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Capodanno D, Capranzano P, Tamburino C. CABG versus PCI in diabetic patients with multivessel disease after risk stratification by the SYNTAX score: a pooled analysis of the SYNTAX and FREEDOM trials. Int J Cardiol 2014; 173 (03) 548-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF. et al; EXCEL Trial Investigators. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (19) 1820-1830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019; 40 (02) 87-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Taggart DP. PCI or CABG in coronary artery disease?. Lancet 2009; 373 (9670): 1150-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tarr FI, Sasvári M, Tarr M, Rácz R. Evidence of nitric oxide produced by the internal mammary artery graft in venous drainage of the recipient coronary artery. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80 (05) 1728-1731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 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 (06) 2005-2012 , discussion 2012–2014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Yanagawa B, Verma S, Mazine A. et al. Impact of total arterial revascularization on long term survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 130,305 patients. Int J Cardiol 2017; 233: 29-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Tavilla G, Bruggemans EF, Putter H. Twenty-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting utilizing 3 in situ arterial grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 157 (06) 2228-2236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Urso S, Sadaba R, González JM. et al. Total arterial revascularization strategies: A meta-analysis of propensity score-matched observational studies. J Card Surg 2019; 34 (09) 837-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Gaudino M, Rahouma M, Abouarab A. et al. Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of drug eluting stents versus single and multiarterial coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 2018; 122 (12) 2018-2025
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Aggarwal V, Rajpathak S, Singh M, Romick B, Srinivas VS. Clinical outcomes based on completeness of revascularisation in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of multivessel coronary artery disease studies. EuroIntervention 2012; 7 (09) 1095-1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Garcia S, Sandoval Y, Roukoz H. et al. Outcomes after complete versus incomplete revascularization of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 89,883 patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials and observational studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62 (16) 1421-1431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Zimarino M, Ricci F, Romanello M, Di Nicola M, Corazzini A, De Caterina R. Complete myocardial revascularization confers a larger clinical benefit when performed with state-of-the-art techniques in high-risk patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 87 (01) 3-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Leviner DB, Torregrossa G, Puskas JD. Incomplete revascularization: what the surgeon needs to know. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 7 (04) 463-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Hawkes AL, Nowak M, Bidstrup B, Speare R. Outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2006; 2 (04) 477-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Puskas JD, Halkos ME, DeRose JJ. et al. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization for the Treatment of Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Multicenter Observational Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68 (04) 356-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar