Literature DB >> 8609339

Three-year follow-up of the Argentine Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Multivessel Disease (ERACI).

A Rodriguez1, E Mele, E Peyregne, F Bullon, N Perez-Baliño, M I Liprandi, I F Palacios.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to report the 3-year follow-up results of the ERACI trial (Argentine Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Multivessel Disease).
BACKGROUND: Although coronary angioplasty has been used with increased frequency in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, its value, compared with bypass graft surgery, has not been established. Thus, controlled, randomized clinical trials such as the ERACI are needed.
METHODS: In this trial 127 patients who had multivessel coronary artery disease and clinical indication of myocardial revascularization were randomized to undergo coronary angioplasty (n = 63) or bypass surgery (n = 64). The primary end point of this study was event-free survival (survival with freedom from myocardial infarction, angina and new revascularization procedures) for both groups of patients at 1, 3 and 5 years of follow-up.
RESULTS: Freedom from combined cardiac events (death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, angina and repeat revascularization procedures) was significantly greater for the bypass surgery group than the coronary angioplasty group (77% vs. 47%; p < 0.001). There were no differences in overall (4.7% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.5) and cardiac (4.7% vs. 4.7%; p = 1) mortality or in the frequency of myocardial infarction (7.8% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.8) between the two groups. However, patients who had bypass surgery were more frequently free of angina (79% vs. 57%; p < 0.001) and required fewer additional reinterventions (6.3% vs. 37%; p < 0.001) than patients who had coronary angioplasty.
CONCLUSIONS: 1) Freedom from combined cardiac events at 3-year follow-up was greater in patients who had bypass surgery than in those who had coronary angioplasty. 2) The coronary angioplasty group had a higher incidence of recurrence of angina and the need for repeat revascularization procedures. 3) Cumulative cost at 3-year follow-up was greater for the bypass surgery group than for the coronary angioplasty group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8609339     DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(95)00592-7

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


  12 in total

1.  Is surgery still the preferred option for coronary revascularisation in diabetics with multivessel coronary disease?

Authors:  A Kapur; I S Malik
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in the stent era: a prospective study of all 9890 consecutive patients operated on in Scotland over a two year period.

Authors:  J P Pell; D Walsh; J Norrie; G Berg; A D Colquhoun; K Davidson; H Eteiba; A Faichney; A Flapan; K J Hogg; R R Jeffrey; K Jennings; J McArthur; P Mankad; K Oldroyd; A C Pell; I R Starkey
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 3.  Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: Meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Zaher Fanari; Sandra A Weiss; Wei Zhang; Seema S Sonnad; William S Weintraub
Journal:  Cardiovasc Revasc Med       Date:  2015-01-22

Review 4.  Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

Authors:  Federico Augustovski; Cynthia Iglesias; Andrea Manca; Michael Drummond; Adolfo Rubinstein; Sebastián García Martí
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Revascularization in coronary artery disease. A review of randomized trial data.

Authors:  C R Keenan; T M Chou
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1998-04

Review 6.  Surgical versus percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Piroze M Davierwala; Freidrich W Mohr
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.113

7.  Evaluation of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing dual vessel percutaneous coronary intervention using sirolimus-eluting coronary stent system in India.

Authors:  Prakash Chandwani; Jayesh Prajapati; Sanjay Porwal; Bhavesh Khambhati; Ashok Thakkar
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-02-01

8.  Trends in two year risk of repeat revascularisation or death from cardiovascular disease after coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention in Western Australia, 1980-2001.

Authors:  K A McCaul; M S T Hobbs; M W Knuiman; J M Rankin; I Gilfillan
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 5.994

9.  One year comparison of costs of coronary surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in the stent or surgery trial.

Authors:  W S Weintraub; E M Mahoney; Z Zhang; H Chu; J Hutton; M Buxton; J Booth; F Nugara; R H Stables; P Dooley; J Collinson; M Stuteville; N Delahunty; A Wright; M D Flather; E De Cock
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.994

10.  Coronary stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease and significant proximal LAD stenosis: results from the ERACI II study.

Authors:  A Rodriguez; M Rodríguez Alemparte; J Baldi; J Navia; A Delacasa; D Vogel; R Oliveri; C Fernández Pereira; V Bernardi; W O'Neill; I F Palacios
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 5.994

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.