title: Coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous revascularization in acute myocardial infarction?
abstract: A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was as follows: is coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of in-hospital mortality and morbidity and long-term outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI)? A total of 104 papers were returned using the selected search. Of these, six represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The selection criteria were comparative studies with only PCI and CABG groups in patients with acute MI. Case reports, reviews, recommendations and studies on a specific population or out of the context of acute MI were excluded. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Almost all PCI patients received stents. One study used drug-eluting stents (DES). Two randomized studies showed similar short- and mid-term morbidities and mortalities in patients with acute MI in the PCI and CABG groups but higher repeat revascularization rates after PCI. Three observational studies found comparable survival, but one of them found more periprocedural events with CABG and the other two found more recurrent ischaemia requiring repeat revascularization in the PCI group. In one cohort study, CABG appeared to be an independent risk factor for death in N-STEMI according to the European Society/American College of Cardiology 2000 definition. The results are strongly influenced by the definition of acute MI. In an institution offering the two techniques with an equivalent accessibility, the principal advantage of PCI is a lower incidence of periprocedural and short-term morbidities. CABG, on the other hand, offers a better durability with less mid-term repeat revascularization required, especially when compared with PCI with DES implantation. Choice had to weight up coronary artery anatomy, number and localization of coronary artery stenosis and accessibility of both PCI and CABG treatments. Medical and surgical discussion within the Heart Team is required to make the best medical decision for each patient.
authors: Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
authors: Stéphanie
authors: S
authors: Perrier
authors: Michel
authors: M
authors: Kindo
authors: Sébastien
authors: S
authors: Gerelli
authors: Jean-Philippe
authors: JP
authors: Mazzucotelli
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001026:Coronary Artery Bypass / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000401:mortality; D005260:Female; D017052:Hospital Mortality; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009203:Myocardial Infarction / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery / Q000628:therapy*; D018579:Patient Selection; D062645:Percutaneous Coronary Intervention / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000401:mortality; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy; D012008:Recurrence; D012307:Risk Factors; D015607:Stents; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
keywords: Coronary artery bypass; Coronary disease; Myocardial infarction; Review
references: Circulation. 2002 May 21;105(20):2367-72
references: 12021222
references: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2003 Dec;2(4):405-9
references: 17670084
references: Circulation. 2012 Oct 16;126(16):2020-35
references: 22923432
references: N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 23;355(21):2203-16
references: 17124018
references: Am J Cardiol. 2011 Aug 1;108(3):355-9
references: 21545992
references: Am J Cardiol. 2008 Jul 15;102(2):173-9
references: 18602516
references: Am Heart J. 2005 Jul;150(1):175-81
references: 16084166
references: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Sep;36(3):959-69
references: 10987628
references: N Engl J Med. 1999 Aug 26;341(9):625-34
references: 10460813
references: Circulation. 1994 Jul;90(1):583-612
references: 8026046
references: JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Oct;3(10):1059-67
references: 20965465
references: Circulation. 2005 Sep 27;112(13):1992-2001
references: 16186436