HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

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): Hendrick B. Barner Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Barner, H. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barner, H. B. Related Collections Coronary disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;30:419-424
© 2006 Elsevier Science NL

Invited paper

Status of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass

Forest Park Hospital and the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA

Received 17 March 2006; received in revised form 12 May 2006; accepted 31 May 2006.

^_* Corresponding author. Address: 6125 Clayton Avenue, Suite 430, Saint Louis, MO 63139, USA. Tel.: +1 314 768 3216; fax: +1 314 768 3462. (Email: hendrick.barner{at}forestparkhosital.com).

At present a rapid and profound change in myocardial revascularization has evolved from the work of Gruentzig. The recent technological advances have been so fast paced that there has not been ample time to fully assess each new facet of technology and pharmaceutics before another arrives. The interface between percutaneous intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass (CAB) is not well defined as previously so that continental, national and regional differences exist. The progress in PCI from balloon angioplasty to drug eluting stents has seen a progressive decline in restenosis and reintervention but relief of symptoms has not equaled that attained with CAB. Survival benefit for CAB over PCI has not been demonstrated in the many randomized clinical trials which are limited by selection of only 5–12% of potential patients so that higher risk patients and those with more extensive and complex coronary disease are excluded. These excluded patients are included in the registries where survival benefit for CAB over PCI is clearly evident. Situations less amenable to PCI include: left main disease; three vessel disease; vessels that are smaller, diffusely diseased or with distal lesions which are frequently associated with diabetes; ostial and bifurcation lesions; and coronary arteries that are tortuous, calcified or with very long lesions. It is in these situations that PCI does not provide revascularization equivalent to CAB. Surgeons must appreciate the success of PCI, acknowledge their reduced role in revascularization and strive to provide the best operation possible when the clinical situation demands it.

Key Words: Coronary artery disease • Coronary artery bypass • Percutaneous coronary intervention • Coronary stenting

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Price, D. E. Kandzari, and P. S. Teirstein Change We Can Believe In: The Hyper-Evolution of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Unprotected Left Main Disease With Drug-Eluting Stents Circ Cardiovasc Interv, December 1, 2008; 1(3): 164 - 166. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Yi, Y.-N. Youn, K.-J. Yoo, and Y.-S. Hong Comparison of Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Three-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 2008; 86(5): 1438 - 1443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. O. Stirban and D. Tschoepe Cardiovascular Complications in Diabetes: Targets and interventions Diabetes Care, February 1, 2008; 31(Supplement_2): S215 - S221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]