Narrowing the gap: Early and intermediate outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft procedures in California, 1997 to 2006

Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Volumn 138, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 1100-1107

  Carey, Joseph S ^a,b   Danielsen, Beate ^c   Milliken, Jeffrey ^a,b   Li, Zhongmin ^d   Stabile, Bruce E ^e  

^a California Society of Thoracic Surgeons   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Health Information Solutions   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENCE RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

ANGIOPLASTY, BALLOON, CORONARY; CALIFORNIA; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FEMALE; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RISK FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 72049091790     PISSN: 00225223     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.03.069     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Carey J.S., Danielsen B., Gold J., and Rossiter S. Procedure rates and outcomes of coronary revascularization procedures in California and New York. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129 (2005) 1276-1282
2. Carey J.S., Danielsen B., Junod F.L., Rossiter S.J., and Stabile B. The California cardiac surgery and intervention project: evolution of a public reporting system. Am Surg 72 (2006) 978-983
3. Li Z., Yeo K.K., Mahendra G., and Amsterdam E. Patient profiling of coronary artery bypass in comparison to percutaneous coronary intervention in California 2004. (Abstract). J Am Coll Cardiol 51 Suppl A (2008) A233
4. Takagi H., Kawai N., and Umemoto T. Meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials on long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for multivessel coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 101 (2008) 1259-1262
5. Taggart D.P. Coronary artery bypass graft vs. percutaneous coronary angioplasty: CABG on the rebound?. Curr Opin Cardiol 22 (2007) 517-523
6. Varani E., Balducelli M., Vecchi G., Aquilina M., and Maresta A. Comparison of multiple drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary intervention and surgical revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: one-year clinical results and total treatment costs. J Invasive Cardiol 19 (2007) 476-477
7. Bair T.L., Muhlestein J.B., May H.T., Meredith K.G., Horne B.D., Pearson R.R., et al. Surgical revascularization is associated with improved long-term outcomes compared with percutaneous stenting in most subgroups of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the Intermountain Heart Registry. Circulation 11 (2007) I226-I231
8. Hannan E.L., Wu C., Walford G., Culliford A.T., Gold J.P., Smith C.R., et al. Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 358 (2008) 405-407
9. Apolito R.A., Greenberg M.A., Menegus M.A., Lowe A.M., Sleeper L.A., Goldberger M.H., et al. Impact of the New York State Cardiac Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reporting System on the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 155 (2008) 267-273
10. Moscucci M., Eagle K.A., Share D., Smith D., De Franco A.C., O'Donnell M., et al. Public reporting and case selection for percutaneous coronary interventions: an analysis from 2 large multicenter percutaneous coronary intervention databases. J Am Coll Cardiol 45 (2005) 1766-1768