Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Randomised controlled trial
Percutaneous coronary intervention has similar 5-year survival rates to coronary artery bypass grafting surgery for patients with unprotected left main artery disease
  1. Carlos Collet1,
  2. Patrick W Serruys2
  1. 1Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Cardiology, Imperial College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Patrick W Serruys, Westblaak 98, 3012 KM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.; patrick.w.j.c.serruys{at}gmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Commentary on: Mäkikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016;388:2743–2752.

Context

An on-going debate is whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) offers similar clinical results compared with coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) for patients with unprotected left main artery disease (ULMAD). Previously, the SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery  (SYNTAX) trial scrutinized the benefit of the first generation of drug-eluting stents in patients with multivessel disease and ULMAD. At 5 years, CABG was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with PCI. Nonetheless, in patients with ULMAD and SYNTAX score <33, similar results were observed.1 The European and American guidelines agree upon the fact that in patients with ULMAD, CABG is the preferred treatment whereas PCI might be an alternative when the SYNTAX score …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.