Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of multivessel coronary disease: Quo vadis? -A review of the evidences on coronary artery disease

91Citations
Citations of this article
222Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The optimal treatment of ischemic coronary artery disease (CAD) is still controversial. A number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and several meta-analyses have been performed and are inspiring the current guidelines. However, a univocal consensus on the optimal therapeutic strategy for multivessel disease has still not been reached yet. We reviewed the current evidence on this topic, focusing on both RCT and meta-analyses. From both short and long-term studies, it emerges that in patients with multivessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with better survival, lower rates of major cardiovascular events (specifically myocardial infarction or stroke) and repeat revascularization as compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Spadaccio, C., & Benedetto, U. (2018). Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of multivessel coronary disease: Quo vadis? -A review of the evidences on coronary artery disease. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 7(4), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.21037/acs.2018.05.17

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free