Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical evidence versus patients’ perception of coronary revascularization

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yusuf S, Zucker D, Passamani E, Peduzzi P, Takaro T, Fisher LD, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomized trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet. 1994;344:563–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G, Jones RH, Ryan TJ, Bennett E, et al. Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2174–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM, Boersma E, Booth J, Brooks MM, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomized trials. Lancet. 2009;373:1190–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, Culliford AT, Gold JP, Smith CR, et al. Drug-eluting stents vs coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:331–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Serryus PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kosruk WJ, COURAGE Trial Research Group, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1506–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Trikarinos TA, Alsheikh-Ali AA, Tatsioni A, Nallamothu BK, Kent D. Percutaneous coronary interventions for non-acute coronary artery disease: a quantitative 20-year synopsis and a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;373:911–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JPA. PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:414–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Loop FD, Cosgrove DM, Stewart RW, Goormastic M, Williams GW, Golding LA, et al. Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med. 1986;341:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Loop FD, Houghtaling PL, Arnold JH, Akhrass R, et al. Two internal thoracic artery grafts are better than one. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;117:855–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Puskas JD, Thourani VH, Kilgo P, Cooper W, Vassiliades TA, Vega JD, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass disproportionately benefits high-risk patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:1142–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sakata R, Fujii Y, Kuwano H. Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery in Japan during 2009. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;59:636–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2503–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P, Maron DJ, Zhang Z, Jurkovitz C, COURAGE Trial Research Group, et al. Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:677–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, Bittl JA, Bridges CR, Byene AM Jr, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practical Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e123–e210.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fox KA, Clayton TC, Damman P, et al. Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome; a meta-analysis of individual patient dada. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2434–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Rassi AN, et al. Benefits of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1319–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kimura T, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Shizuta S, Ehara N, et al. Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel coronary artery disease in the bare-metal stent era. Circulation. 2008;118(Suppl 1):S199–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hannan EL, Racz NJ, Gold J, Cozzens K, Stamato NJ, Powell T, et al. Adherence of catheterization laboratory cardiologists to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery: What happens in actual practice? Circulation 2010;121:267–5.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gibbon RJ. Get with the guidelines: a new chapter? Circulation. 2010;121:194–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Benedetto U, Melina G, Angeloni E, Refice S, Roscitano A, Fiorani B, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting versus drug-eluting stents in multivessel coronary disease. A meta-analysis on 24268 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;36:611–5.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kappertein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ, Morice M-C, Holmes DR, Stahle E, et al. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of the left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX tral. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2125–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Serruys PW. SYNTAX at four years. The European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 2011 Annual Meeting.

  24. Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, Di Mario C, Falk V, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2501–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practical Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011;124:e574–651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Capodanno D, Tamburino C. Unraveling the EXCELL: Promises and challenges of the next trial of left main percutaneous coronary intervention. Intern J Card. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.10.020.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Winterborn RJ, Amin I, Lyratzopoulos G, Walker N, Varty K, Cambell B. Preference for endovascular (EVAR) or open surgical repair among patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms under surveillance. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:576–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kawasuji M. Debate over patient-centered care: percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting? Surg Today. 2011;41:459–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rothberg MB, Sivelingam SK, Ashraf J, Visintainer P, Joelson J, Kleppel R, et al. Patients’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:307–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chandrasekharan DP, Taggart DP. Informed consent for interventions in stable coronary artery disease: problems, etiologies, and solutions. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;39:912–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin GA, Dudley RA, Redberg RF. Whey physicians favor use of percutaneous coronary intervention to medical therapy: a focus group study. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:1458–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Whittle J, Conigliaro J, Good C, Kelly M, Skanderson M. Understanding of the benefits of coronary revascularization procedures among patients who are offered such procedures. Am Heart J. 2007;154:662–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fernandez A. Improving the quality of informed consent: it is not all about the risks. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:342–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Feit F, Brooks MM, Sopko G, Keller NM, Rosen A, Krone R, BARI Investigators, et al. Long-term clinical outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry: comparison with the randomized trial. Circulation. 2000;101:2795–802.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The author (Dr. Kawasuji) has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Postgraduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Honjo 1-1-1, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan

    Michio Kawasuji

Authors
  1. Michio Kawasuji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michio Kawasuji.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kawasuji, M. Clinical evidence versus patients’ perception of coronary revascularization. Surg Today 43, 347–352 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0467-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0467-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation