Home > DARE Reviews > Percutaneous coronary intervention with...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

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

Review published: 2010.

Bibliographic details: 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(2): 269-276. [PubMed: 20562080]

Quality assessment

This review concluded that percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents was safe in patients with multivessel disease compared with coronary artery bypass grafting. However, it was associated with a significantly higher risk of target vessel revascularisation. As the quality of included studies was not assessed and data came largely from observational studies, the authors' conclusions should be treated with caution. Full critical summary

Abstract

AIMS: The aim of this study was to systematically analyse the available data from trials comparing revascularisation by drug-eluting stent (DES) placement versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed, Medline and several internet sources for randomised controlled trials comparing DES placement to CABG in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. There were no restrictions on journal type or population studied. Prior to data collection we chose to analyse the prospectively performed trials separately from data obtained retrospectively. Four prospective trials were identified which enrolled a total of 3,895 patients: 1,914 in the DES arm and 1,981 patients in the CABG arm. Pooled analysis of data from these four studies showed that in patients treated DES compared to CABG there was a similar risk of the combined endpoints of death, myocardial infarction and stroke (10.2% versus 10.8%, respectively; RR=0.94 [95% CI=0.77-1.116]; p=0.56), but a significantly higher risk of target vessel revascularisation (TVR) (14.6% versus 6.8%, respectively; RR=2.09 [95% CI=1.72-2.55]; <0.001) and, therefore, a significantly higher risk of MACCE (21.2% versus 16.3%, respectively; RR=1.27 [95% CI=1.09-1.48]; p=0.002). Interestingly, when MACCE rates at one year are used for these trials the risk is equivalent between DES and CABG (14.4% versus 12.5%, respectively; RR=1.05 [95% CI=0.70-1.57]; p=0.83). Analysis of observational data revealed similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PCI with DES placement was safe in patients with multivessel disease compared to CABG, but is associated with a significantly higher risk of TVR.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2012 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...