Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery vs Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Research work, which analyzed both coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and catheter/balloon/stent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), has revealed that though more invasive, CABG is a preferred option for diabetics and heart patients in age group 65-75 as they are prone to die earlier with PCI. This significant publication came up in Online First and covered in The Lancet’s coming journal, having been composed by Professor Mark A Hlatky, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA, and mates.

CABG and PCI have been compared at different scales. CABG is a surgery, which necessitates invasion into the body and need logner recovery time. No scale conclusively marked out traits for age, sex, or impact of coronary disease. Analysts have broached 10 tests and their results and the effects have been compared in 7812 patients to judge the better of the two systems. PCI process used balloon angioplasty in six cases while in the rest four, employed bare-metal stents.

Researchers that follow-up in 6 years found almost same results with both treatments. In 6 years, 15% CABG-treated patients succumbed while 16% PCI-treated patients breathed their last. With diabetics, the cases were heavily in favor of CABG as PCI patients had 30% more chance of dying. The same was found in age group 65-75 with mortality difference being 18% in favor of CABG, while people younger than 55 years given CABG were 25% more likely not to survive compare to those given PCI.

While David Taggart, Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Oxford, and Consultant Cardiac Surgeon, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK, opined that heavy diabetes and coronary patients are better off with CABG as it increases rate of survival and decreases chance of relapse, SYNTAX was of the view that PCI should be preferred by short-term patients who are neither in favor of CABG nor willing to follow the prohibitive life after CABG.