Download PDF
Int J Angiol 2021; 30(03): 228-242
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735591
Review Article

The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Matthew A. Brown 
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Seth Klusewitz
2   Department of Cardiology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
,
John Elefteriades
3   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
,
Lindsey Prescher
3   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The question of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains among the most important questions in the treatment of coronary artery disease. The leading North American and European societies largely agree on the current guidelines for the revascularization of unprotected left-main disease (ULMD) and multivessel disease (MVD) which are largely supported by the outcomes of several large randomized trials including SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL. While these trials are of the highest quality, currently available, they suffer several limitations, including the use of bare metal and/or first-generation drug-eluting stents in early trials and lack of updated surgical outcomes data. The objective of this review is to briefly discuss these key early trials, as well as explore contemporary studies, to provide insight on the current state of coronary revascularization. Evidence suggests that in ULMD and MVD, there are similar mortality rates for CABG and PCI but PCI is associated with fewer “early” strokes, whereas CABG is associated with fewer “late” strokes, myocardial infarctions, and lower need for repeat revascularization. Additionally, studies suggest that CABG remains superior to PCI in patients with intermediate/high SYNTAX scores and in MVD with concomitant proximal left anterior descending (pLAD) artery stenosis. Despite the preceding research and its basis for our current guidelines, there remains significant variation in care that has yet to be quantified. Emerging studies evaluating second-generation drug-eluting stents, specific lesion anatomy, and minimally invasive and hybrid approaches to CABG may lend itself to more individualized patient care.

Keywords

cardiology - coronary artery disease - coronary artery bypass graft surgery - percutaneous coronary intervention


Publication History

Article published online:
10 November 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 Virani SS, Alonso A, Aparicio HJ. et al; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2021 update: a report from the american heart association. Circulation 2021; 143 (08) e254-e743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B. et al; FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012; 367 (11) 991-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chamberlain DA, Fox KA, Henderson RA, Julian DG, Parker DJ, Pocock SJ. Coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy for angina: the second Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA-2) trial. RITA-2 trial participants. Lancet 1997; 350 (9076): 461-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 TIME Investigators. Trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary-artery disease (TIME): a randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 358 (9286): 951-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 O'Connor CM, Velazquez EJ, Gardner LH. et al. Comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy on long-term outcome in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (a 25-year experience from the Duke Cardiovascular Disease Databank). Am J Cardiol 2002; 90 (02) 101-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
  • 7 Glazier JJ, Ramos-Parra B, Kaki A. Therapeutic options for left main, left main equivalent, and three-vessel disease. Int J Angiol 2021; 30 (01) 76-82
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M. et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation 2012; 125 (23) 2873-2891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sarno G, Lagerqvist B, Nilsson J. et al. Stent thrombosis in new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI: a report from SCAAR. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64 (01) 16-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bangalore S, Toklu B, Amoroso N. et al. Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BMJ 2013; 347: f6625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Darmoch F, Alraies MC, Al-Khadra Y, Moussa Pacha H, Pinto DS, Osborn EA. Intravascular ultrasound imaging-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2020; 9 (05) e013678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hess CN, Lopes RD, Gibson CM. et al. Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: insights from PREVENT IV. Circulation 2014; 130 (17) 1445-1451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes S. et al; RADIAL Investigators. Radial-artery or saphenous-vein grafts in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2018; 378 (22) 2069-2077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Taggart DP, Benedetto U, Gerry S. et al; Arterial Revascularization Trial Investigators. Bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts at 10 years. N Engl J Med 2019; 380 (05) 437-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Buszman PE, Kiesz SR, Bochenek A. et al. Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51 (05) 538-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Buszman PE, Buszman PP, Banasiewicz-Szkróbka I. et al. Left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization: 10-year outcomes of the (Left main coronary artery stenting) LE MANS trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (04) 318-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Seung KB, Park D-W, Kim Y-H. et al. Stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (17) 1781-1792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Park D-W, Ahn J-M, Yun S-C. et al. 10-year outcomes of stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72 (23 Pt A): 2813-2822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 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
  • 20 Mohr FW, Morice M-C, Kappetein AP. et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet 2013; 381 (9867): 629-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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
  • 22 Park S-J, Kim Y-H, Park D-W. et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2011; 364 (18) 1718-1727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ahn J-M, Roh J-H, Kim Y-H. et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5-year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65 (20) 2198-2206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T. et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57 (05) 538-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mäkikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M. et al; NOBLE study investigators. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016; 388 (10061): 2743-2752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Holm NR, Mäkikallio T, Lindsay MM. et al; NOBLE investigators. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial. Lancet 2020; 395 (10219): 191-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 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
  • 28 Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW. et al; EXCEL Trial Investigators. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (23) 2223-2235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Giacoppo D, Colleran R, Cassese S. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2017; 2 (10) 1079-1088
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Palmerini T, Serruys P, Kappetein AP. et al. Clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary revascularization vs coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 6 randomized trials and 4,686 patients. Am Heart J 2017; 190: 54-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ahmad Y, Howard JP, Arnold AD. et al. Drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for left main disease: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up. Am J Cardiol 2020; 132: 168-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Al-Abcha A, Saleh Y, Mujer M, Herzallah K, Abela GS. Long-term outcomes of left main coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents vs coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2021; 23: 14-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ullah W, Sattar Y, Ullah I. et al. Percutaneous intervention or bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Interv Cardiol 2020; 2020: 4081642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hyun J, Kim JH, Jeong Y. et al; MAIN-COMPARE Registry. Long-term outcomes after pci or cabg for left main coronary artery disease according to lesion location. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13 (24) 2825-2836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ram E, Goldenberg I, Kassif Y. et al. Real-life characteristics and outcomes of patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: data from the prospective Multi-vessel Coronary Artery Disease (MULTICAD) Israeli Registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 54 (04) 717-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ram E, Goldenberg I, Sternik L. et al. Real-world referral pattern and outcomes of diabetic patients who undergo revascularization: data from the prospective Multi-vessel Coronary Artery Disease (MULTICAD) Israeli Registry†. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019; 56 (02) 328-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Valle JA, Tamez H, Abbott JD. et al. Contemporary use and trends in unprotected left main coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: an analysis of the national cardiovascular data registry research to practice initiative. JAMA Cardiol 2019; 4 (02) 100-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ko W, Tranbaugh R, Marmur JD, Supino PG, Borer JS. Myocardial revascularization in New York State: variations in the pci-to-cabg ratio and their implications. J Am Heart Assoc 2012; 1 (02) e001446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Chandrasekharan DP, Taggart DP. Informed consent for interventions in stable coronary artery disease: problems, etiologies, and solutions. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011; 39 (06) 912-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Babb JD, Schmidt RG, Berard TM, Field JM. Clinical features of left main equivalent coronary disease. Am J Cardiol 1980; 45 (02) 222-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Califf RM, Conley MJ, Behar VS. et al. “Left main equivalent” coronary artery disease: its clinical presentation and prognostic significance with nonsurgical therapy. Am J Cardiol 1984; 53 (11) 1489-1495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Caracciolo EA, Davis KB, Sopko G. et al. Comparison of surgical and medical group survival in patients with left main equivalent coronary artery disease. Long-term CASS experience. Circulation 1995; 91 (09) 2335-2344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R. et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: executive summary and recommendations: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to revise the 1991 guidelines for coronary artery bypass graft surgery). Circulation 1999; 100 (13) 1464-1480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Patel MR, Calhoon JH, Dehmer GJ. et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology appropriate use criteria task force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69 (17) 2212-2241
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 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
  • 46 Garg S, Sarno G, Gutiérrez-Chico J-L, Garcia-Garcia HM, Gomez-Lara J, Serruys PW. ARTS-II investigators. Five-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention compared to bypass surgery in patients with multivessel disease involving the proximal left anterior descending artery: an ARTS-II sub-study. EuroIntervention 2011; 6 (09) 1060-1067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Cavalcante R, Sotomi Y, Zeng Y. et al. Coronary bypass surgery versus stenting in multivessel disease involving the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. Heart 2017; 103 (06) 428-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Weintraub WS, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Weiss JM. et al. Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (16) 1467-1476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 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
  • 50 Watanabe H, Shiomi H, Morimoto T. et al; CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG registry/cohort-2 investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary arterial bypass grafting in patients with multi-vessel coronary revascularization (from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG registry/cohort-2). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 96 (01) 42-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Fanari Z, Weiss SA, Zhang W, Sonnad SS, Weintraub WS. Short, intermediate and long term outcomes of CABG vs. PCI with des in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials. Eur J Cardiovasc Med 2014; 3 (01) 382-389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Papadopoulos K, Lekakis I, Nicolaides E. Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents for patients with multivessel and unprotected left main coronary artery disease. SAGE Open Med 2017; 5: 2050312116687707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Bangalore S, Guo Y, Samadashvili Z, Blecker S, Xu J, Hannan EL. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (13) 1213-1222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Chen X, Zhang X, Yan Y. et al. Second generation drug-eluting stent implantation versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of young patients with left main and/or multivessel coronary disease. J Interv Cardiol 2020; 2020: 6736704
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Edelman JJ, Yan TD, Padang R, Bannon PG, Vallely MP. Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90 (04) 1384-1390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Fan M-K, Su Y-M, Cai X-X. et al. Clinical outcomes of revascularization strategies for patients with MVD/LMCA disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94 (42) e1745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Rosenblum JM, Harskamp RE, Hoedemaker N. et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery with bilateral or single internal mammary artery grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 151 (04) 1081-1089
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Su C-S, Shen C-H, Chang K-H. et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated with robot-assisted coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus one-stage percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98 (38) e17202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Kapoor JR, Gienger AL, Ardehali R. et al. Isolated disease of the proximal left anterior descending artery comparing the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 1 (05) 483-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Kinnaird T, Kwok CS, Narain A. et al. Meta-analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting for isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary disease. Am J Cardiol 2016; 118 (08) 1171-1177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Matsoukis IL, Karanasos A, Patsa C. et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery compared to those of percutaneous coronary intervention with second generation drug eluting stents in patients with stable angina and an isolated lesion in the proximal left anterior descending artery. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020; DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29247.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Thiele H, Neumann-Schniedewind P, Jacobs S. et al. Randomized comparison of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery versus sirolimus-eluting stenting in isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53 (25) 2324-2331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Blazek S, Rossbach C, Borger MA. et al. Comparison of sirolimus-eluting stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: 7-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8 (1 pt A): 30-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Harskamp RE, Williams JB, Halkos ME. et al. Meta-analysis of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass versus drug-eluting stents for isolated left anterior descending coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 148 (05) 1837-1842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Hannan EL, Zhong Y, Cozzens K. et al. Revascularization for isolated proximal left anterior descending artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 112 (02) 555-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Indja B, Woldendorp K, Black D, Bannon PG, Wilson MK, Vallely MP. Minimally invasive surgical approaches to left main and left anterior descending coronary artery revascularization are superior compared to first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents: a network meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2020; 57 (01) 18-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM. et al; BARI 2D Study Group. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (24) 2503-2515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 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
  • 69 Ariyaratne TV, Ademi Z, Yap C-H. et al. Prolonged effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery versus drug-eluting stents in diabetics with multi-vessel disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2014; 176 (02) 346-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Giustino G, Mehran R, Serruys PW. et al. Left main revascularization with pci or cabg in patients with chronic kidney disease: excel trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72 (07) 754-765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Chan W, Ivanov J, Ko D. et al. Clinical outcomes of treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing index revascularization in Ontario. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8 (01) e001973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Šerpytis R, Puodžiukaitė L, Petrauskas S. et al. Outcomes of a percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in octogenarians. Acta Med Litu 2018; 25 (03) 132-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Nicolini F, Contini GA, Fortuna D. et al. Coronary artery surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians: long-term results. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99 (02) 567-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Zhang Q, Zhao X-H, Gu H-F, Xu Z-R, Yang Y-M. Clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians with coronary artery disease. Can J Cardiol 2016; 32 (09) 1166.e21-1166.e28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar