A review of 23 randomized trials comparing PCI with CABG illuminates some relative risks and benefits.
Both coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are viable options for most patients in need of revascularization. However, which strategy is better for individual patients is a subject of frequent debate. To explore this issue, investigators studied data from 23 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5019 patients randomly assigned to PCI and 4944 randomly assigned to CABG.
Most of the participants (average age, 61) were of European descent; 27% were women. About one fifth had diabetes. The methods used in the procedures were standard at the time each trial took place. Survival rates at 30 days were high with both procedures — 98.9% with PCI and 98.2% with CABG — although the rate of stroke d…
Reviewing Author
DisclosuresGrant/Research SupportNIH–National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
DisclosuresGrant/Research SupportNIH–National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute