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.

This article reviews the context and evidence of recent myocardial revascularization trials that compared percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of left main and multivessel coronary artery disease. We develop the rationale that some of the knowledge synthesis resulting from these trials, particularly with regard to the claimed noninferiority of percutaneous coronary intervention beyond nondiabetic patients with low anatomic complexity, may have been affected by trial design, patient selection based on suitability for percutaneous coronary intervention, and end point optimization favoring percutaneous coronary intervention over coronary artery bypass grafting. We provide recommendations that include holding a circumspect interpretation of the currently available evidence, as well as suggestions for the collaborative design and conduct of future clinical trials in this and other fields.

Original publication




Journal article



Publication Date





2943 - 2951


clinical trials as topic, coronary artery disease, coronary stenosis, percutaneous coronary intervention, surgical procedures, operative, treatment outcomes, Bias, Clinical Trials as Topic, Coronary Artery Bypass, Coronary Artery Disease, Humans, Myocardial Revascularization, Patient Selection, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention