Drug‐eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left‐main coronary artery disease

Drug‐eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left‐main coronary artery disease INTRODUCTIONFor several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered the “gold standard” for left‐main (LM) coronary artery disease (CAD) (LMCAD) revascularization in patients eligible for surgery . More recently, however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a possible alternative mode of revascularization . Drug‐eluting stents (DES) are suggested to be associated with favorable outcomes for mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target‐vessel/lesion (TV/TL) repeat revascularization (RRV) (TV‐/TL‐RRV), and major adverse cardiac events as compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS) in PCI for LMCAD . Furthermore, a number of medium‐ to large‐size randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (the NOBLE [Nordic‐Baltic‐British left main revascularization] study and the EXCEL [Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization] trial ) and observational studies with propensity‐score analysis of PCI with DES (DES‐PCI) versus CABG for LMCAD have recently reported mid‐ to long‐term results. Propensity‐score analysis including matching, stratification, and covariate adjustment is a powerful tool to strengthen causal inferences drawn from observational studies . To compare follow‐up outcomes after DES‐PCI versus CABG for LMCAD, we performed a meta‐analysis of RCTs and observational studies with propensity‐score analysis. Although all of recently published meta‐analyses of the same topic extracted and then http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Wiley

Drug‐eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left‐main coronary artery disease

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/drug-eluting-stents-versus-coronary-artery-bypass-grafting-for-left-R62W0cnu90
Publisher
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
Copyright
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
1522-1946
eISSN
1522-726X
D.O.I.
10.1002/ccd.27235
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONFor several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered the “gold standard” for left‐main (LM) coronary artery disease (CAD) (LMCAD) revascularization in patients eligible for surgery . More recently, however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a possible alternative mode of revascularization . Drug‐eluting stents (DES) are suggested to be associated with favorable outcomes for mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target‐vessel/lesion (TV/TL) repeat revascularization (RRV) (TV‐/TL‐RRV), and major adverse cardiac events as compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS) in PCI for LMCAD . Furthermore, a number of medium‐ to large‐size randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (the NOBLE [Nordic‐Baltic‐British left main revascularization] study and the EXCEL [Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization] trial ) and observational studies with propensity‐score analysis of PCI with DES (DES‐PCI) versus CABG for LMCAD have recently reported mid‐ to long‐term results. Propensity‐score analysis including matching, stratification, and covariate adjustment is a powerful tool to strengthen causal inferences drawn from observational studies . To compare follow‐up outcomes after DES‐PCI versus CABG for LMCAD, we performed a meta‐analysis of RCTs and observational studies with propensity‐score analysis. Although all of recently published meta‐analyses of the same topic extracted and then

Journal

Catheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2018

Keywords: ; ; ;

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off