Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To examine the benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) against percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and particularly the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in situations where CABG has traditionally been considered the most effective therapy on clinical and economic grounds. RECENT FINDINGS: Current studies reconfirm that CABG is still the best therapy in terms of improved survival and freedom from reintervention for most patients with proximal left anterior descending, multivessel and left main-stem coronary artery disease (CAD) and that these benefits are even greater in diabetic patients. Health economic analyses also confirm the cost-effectiveness of medical therapy and CABG but not PCI. Furthermore, several meta-analyses have shown that DES do not improve survival or freedom from myocardial infarction compared with bare metal stents, but increase the risk of stent thrombosis, with associated medical and financial implications for prolonged dual antiplatelet medication. SUMMARY: In view of the evidence in favour of CABG, this article questions the justifiability of some trials of PCI vs. CABG, especially in diabetic patients and those with left main-stem CAD, and exhorts the need for a multidisciplinary team approach to the management of CAD as a minimum standard of care.

Original publication




Journal article


Curr Opin Cardiol

Publication Date





517 - 523


Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary, Coronary Artery Bypass, Coronary Artery Disease, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans