This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Stephan Schueler Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Soran, O. Articles by Schueler, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Soran, O. Articles by Schueler, S. Related Collections Related Article

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease: a current perspective

^a Cardiovascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop Street, Presbyterian Hospital, PUH, F-748, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
^b Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA
^c Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 412 647 4411; fax: +1 412 647 7005.

E-mail address: soranzo{at}upmc.edu (O. Soran).

Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are both safe and established treatment modalities of invasive revascularization for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, conflicting information exists when comparing the long-term efficacy of the two methods. The optimal treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) is still subject to discussion, given the lack of fairly designed, prospective, randomized data reflecting current practice in the modern era. Furthermore, the clinical outcomes after invasive revascularization differ according to the number of diseased vessels, presence or absence of diabetes, left main disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Hence, the question arises whether we should continue to use the term ‘multivessel disease’. Conflicts of available data need to be addressed and overcome so that care of patients with CAD can be successfully tailored. In this review article we try to address some of the above conflicts, in an effort to improve our understanding in the care of patients with multivessel disease. We also provide an evidence-based perspective which may differ from the current standard of practice.

Key Words: CABG; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Multivessel disease; Drug-eluting stents

Related Article

eComment: Costs of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronaryartery bypass surgery

Rui M.S. Almeida
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery 2009 8: 672. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. M.S. Almeida eComment: Costs of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronaryartery bypass surgery Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, June 1, 2009; 8(6): 672 - 672. [Full Text] [PDF]