Journal Article
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous revascularization in acute myocardial infarction?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was as follows: is coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of in-hospital mortality and morbidity and long-term outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI)? A total of 104 papers were returned using the selected search. Of these, six represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The selection criteria were comparative studies with only PCI and CABG groups in patients with acute MI. Case reports, reviews, recommendations and studies on a specific population or out of the context of acute MI were excluded. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Almost all PCI patients received stents. One study used drug-eluting stents (DES). Two randomized studies showed similar short- and mid-term morbidities and mortalities in patients with acute MI in the PCI and CABG groups but higher repeat revascularization rates after PCI. Three observational studies found comparable survival, but one of them found more periprocedural events with CABG and the other two found more recurrent ischaemia requiring repeat revascularization in the PCI group. In one cohort study, CABG appeared to be an independent risk factor for death in N-STEMI according to the European Society/American College of Cardiology 2000 definition. The results are strongly influenced by the definition of acute MI. In an institution offering the two techniques with an equivalent accessibility, the principal advantage of PCI is a lower incidence of periprocedural and short-term morbidities. CABG, on the other hand, offers a better durability with less mid-term repeat revascularization required, especially when compared with PCI with DES implantation. Choice had to weight up coronary artery anatomy, number and localization of coronary artery stenosis and accessibility of both PCI and CABG treatments. Medical and surgical discussion within the Heart Team is required to make the best medical decision for each patient.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app