• Something wrong with this record ?

PCI vs. CABG u pacientů se závažnou ischemickou chorobou srdeční: studie SYNTAX
[Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease]

Patrick W. Serruys, et al.

. 2009 ; 3 (3) : 26.

Language Czech Country Czech Republic

Document type Comparative Study, Multicenter Study

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry. RESULTS: Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease

000      
00000naa 2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc09002319
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20190607101008.0
008      
091105s2009 xr e cze||
009      
AR
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a cze $b eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Serruys, P. W., $d 1947- $7 xx0236888
245    10
$a PCI vs. CABG u pacientů se závažnou ischemickou chorobou srdeční: studie SYNTAX / $c Patrick W. Serruys, et al.
246    11
$a Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease
314    __
$a Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam p.w.j.c.serruys@erasmusmc.nl
520    9_
$a Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry. RESULTS: Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
650    _2
$a financování organizované $7 D005381
650    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma $7 D016032
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a balónková koronární angioplastika $x škodlivé účinky $7 D015906
650    _2
$a kardiovaskulární nemoci $x epidemiologie $7 D002318
650    _2
$a koronární bypass $x škodlivé účinky $7 D001026
650    _2
$a nemoci koronárních tepen $7 D003324
650    _2
$a stenty uvolňující léky $7 D054855
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a Kaplanův-Meierův odhad $7 D053208
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a infarkt myokardu $x mortalita $7 D009203
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a opakovaná terapie $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D019233
650    _2
$a stupeň závažnosti nemoci $7 D012720
650    _2
$a cévní mozková příhoda $x mortalita $7 D020521
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
773    0_
$w MED00012706 $t Clinical cardiology alert $g Roč. 3, č. 3 (2009), s. 26 $x 1213-2586
787    18
$w bmc09002321 $i Recenze v: $t Komentář [k článku PCI vs. CABG u pacientů se závažnou ischemickou chorobou srdeční: studie SYNTAX]
910    __
$a ABA008 $b B 2242 $c 407 a $y 9 $z 0
990    __
$a 20091105082547 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20190607101147 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 691490 $s 553389
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2009 $b 3 $c 3 $d 26 $i 1213-2586 $m Clinical Cardiology Alert $x MED00012706
LZP    __
$a 2009-34/mkme

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...