In their article, Chen and Jepson1 discussed the advances in coronary artery stent technology. However, the review did not outline the indications for the newer and more expensive technologies mentioned, and did not indicate how stenting compares with the established practice of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with coronary artery disease. How does percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compare with CABG based on current evidence?
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Chen D, Jepson N. Coronary stent technology: a narrative review. Med J Aust 2016; 205: 277-281. <MJA full text>
- 2. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet 2013; 381: 629-638.
- 3. Sipahi I, Akay MH, Dagdelen S, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term mortality and morbidity in multivessel disease: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on the arterial grafting and stent era. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 223-230.
- 4. Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kim YH, et al. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1204-1212.
- 5. Weintraub WS, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Weiss JM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1467-1476.
No relevant disclosures.