title: Stenting versus surgical bypass grafting for coronary artery disease: systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are both major techniques for the management of coronary artery disease, but CABG is associated with a lower incidence of repeat revascularization. Recent studies comparing angioplasty with stenting vs CABG have yielded conflicting results, with some suggesting improved survival with stenting, and others the opposite. We thus undertook a systematic overview of the randomized trials comparing stenting vs CABG in coronary artery disease.
  
  
  METHODS
  MEDLINE (January 1986-February 2003), ISI Current Contents, the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, LILACS and the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, European Society of Cardiology, and Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference proceedings were among the databases we searched. Abstraction was performed in a non-blinded manner on pre-specified forms. The random-effect odds ratios for death, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, and symptomatic angina were computed for the longest available follow-up.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Nine randomized trials (3283 patients, representing only 6% of all screened subjects) with an average follow-up of 28 months were included in the analysis, while four studies were excluded because they were still unpublished, ongoing, or with non-systematic stenting. No study used drug-eluting stents. The odds ratios for stenting vs CABG were 0.82 (95% confidence interval-CI 0.57-1.18, p = 0.3) for the occurrence of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke, 4.6 (95% CI 3.5-5.9, p < 0.00001) for repeat revascularization, and 2.3 (95% CI 1.8-2.8, p < 0.00001) for symptomatic angina. Heterogeneity tests were not statistically significant. The results of sensitivity analysis were similar even after stratification for single vessel, off-pump, single center or high-quality studies.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Overall and event-free survival after conventional stenting for coronary artery disease are similar to those after CABG, but surgery is still associated with a significantly lower incidence of repeat revascularization and symptoms. The role of next-generation drug-eluting stents in widening the indications for stenting and overcoming restenosis will need to be assessed in future observational and randomized studies comparing stenting vs CABG.
authors.affiliation: Istituto di Cardiologia Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Policlinico A. Gemelli Largo A. Gemelli, 8 00168 Roma. gbiondizoccai@tiscali.it
authors.forename: Giuseppe G L
authors.initials: GG
authors.lastname: Biondi-Zoccai
authors.forename: Antonio
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Abbate
authors.forename: Pierfrancesco
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Agostoni
authors.forename: Quintino
authors.initials: Q
authors.lastname: Parisi
authors.forename: Marco
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Turri
authors.forename: Maurizio
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Anselmi
authors.forename: Corrado
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Vassanelli
authors.forename: Piero
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Zardini
authors.forename: Luigi M
authors.initials: LM
authors.lastname: Biasucci
mesh_terms: D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary; D001026:Coronary Artery Bypass; D003327:Coronary Disease / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy*; D018572:Disease-Free Survival; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D015607:Stents; D016019:Survival Analysis; D016896:Treatment Outcome