Literature DB >> 11451264

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: a multicenter, randomized trial. Investigators of the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study #385, the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME).

D A Morrison1, G Sethi, J Sacks, W Henderson, F Grover, S Sedlis, R Esposito, K Ramanathan, D Weiman, J Saucedo, T Antakli, V Paramesh, S Pett, S Vernon, V Birjiniuk, F Welt, M Krucoff, W Wolfe, J C Lucke, S Mediratta, D Booth, C Barbiere, D Lewis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) are being applied to high-risk populations, but previous randomized trials comparing revascularization methods have excluded a number of important high-risk groups.
OBJECTIVES: This five-year, multicenter, randomized clinical trial was designed to compare long-term survival among patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and a high risk of adverse outcomes assigned to either a CABG or a PCI strategy, which could include stents.
METHODS: Patients from 16 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers were screened to identify myocardial ischemia refractory to medical management and the presence of one or more risk factors for adverse outcome with CABG, including prior open-heart surgery, age >70 years, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, myocardial infarction within seven days or intraaortic balloon pump required. Clinically eligible patients (n = 2,431) underwent coronary angiography; 781 were angiographically acceptable; 454 (58% of eligible) patients consented to random assignment between CABG and PCI.
RESULTS: A total of 232 patients was randomized to CABG and 222 to PCI. The 30-day survivals for CABG and PCI were 95% and 97%, respectively. Survival rates for CABG and PCI were 90% versus 94% at six months and 79% versus 80% at 36 months (log-rank test, p = 0.46).
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention is an alternative to CABG for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and a high risk of adverse outcomes with CABG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11451264     DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01366-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  35 in total

1.  Revascularisation for acute coronary syndromes: PCI or CABG?

Authors:  J Gunn; D P Taggart
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 2.  Secondary revascularization after CABG surgery.

Authors:  Javier Escaned
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 32.419

3.  Description of a Heart Team approach to coronary revascularization and its beneficial long-term effect on clinical events after PCI.

Authors:  Tassilo Bonzel; Volker Schächinger; Hilmar Dörge
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 4.  Revascularization Strategies for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Bennet George; Naoki Misumida; Khaled M Ziada
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 2.931

5.  Outcomes of revascularization strategies for two-vessel coronary artery disease involving the proximal left anterior descending artery in an era of improved pharmacotherapy and stenting.

Authors:  Jaroslav Hubacek; Sunil Kalla; P Diane Galbraith; Michelle M Graham; Merril L Knudtson; William A Ghali
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 5.223

6.  Revascularization treatment in patients with coronary artery disease.

Authors:  S G Foussas; G Z Tsiaousis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 0.471

Review 7.  Percutaneous versus surgical interventions for coronary artery disease in those with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Ozlem Soran
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 2.931

8.  The Future REvascularization Evaluation in patients with Diabetes mellitus: optimal management of Multivessel disease (FREEDOM) trial: clinical and angiographic profile at study entry.

Authors:  Sameer Bansilal; Michael E Farkouh; Whady Hueb; May Ogdie; George Dangas; Alexandra J Lansky; David J Cohen; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Krishnan Ramanathan; Jean-Francois Tanguay; Victoria Muratov; Lynn A Sleeper; Michael Domanski; Michel E Bertrand; Valentin Fuster
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.749

Review 9.  Optimal method of coronary revascularization in patients receiving dialysis: systematic review.

Authors:  Immaculate F Nevis; Anna Mathew; Richard J Novick; Chirag R Parikh; Philip J Devereaux; Madhu K Natarajan; Arthur V Iansavichus; Meaghan S Cuerden; Amit X Garg
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 8.237

10.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for diabetics with multivessel coronary artery disease: the Korean Multicenter Revascularization Registry (KORR).

Authors:  Hyeon-Cheol Gwon; Seung Hee Choi; Byung-Il William Choi; Seung Yun Cho; Young Moo Ro; Won Ro Lee
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.