Clinical evidence versus patients’ perception of coronary revascularization

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been developed as revascularization techniques for coronary artery disease. CABG offers a survival advantage over medical therapy, especially for high-risk coronary patients, whereas PCI is the most frequent initial procedure to treat multi-vessel coronary artery disease, because it is less invasive. However, PCI has been found to confer no additional benefit with respect to myocardial infarction (MI) or death. The SYNTAX trial compared the outcomes of patients with left main and/or three-vessel coronary artery disease treated with CABG versus PCI using drug-eluting stents. The 4-year results showed that all-cause mortality and cardiac death were both significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group. Despite extensive evidence of the advantages of CABG over PCI with respect to death or MI, PCI is recommended more often and CABG less often than indicated in the guidelines. Patients with coronary artery disease should receive unbiased information about the risks and benefits of each procedure and the alternatives. A multidisciplinary approach, referred to as “the Heart Team”, could help to improve the informed consent process when recommending revascularization treatment for coronary artery disease.