Patient preferences for coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 212-218

  Kipp, Ryan ^a   Lehman, James ^a   Israel, Jacqueline ^a   Edwards, Niloo ^a   Becker, Tara ^a   Raval, Amish N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

coronary atherosclerosis; myocardial revascularization; percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CARDIAC PATIENT; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DEATH; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PHYSICIAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPEAT PROCEDURE; RISK ASSESSMENT; THORAX PAIN;

EID: 84880581655     PISSN: 15221946     EISSN: 1522726X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.24399     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, Edwards FH, Ewy GA, et al. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). Circulation 2004; 110: e340-e437.
2. Serruys PW, Degertekin M, Tanabe K, Abizaid A, Sousa JE, et al. Intravascular ultrasound findings in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind RAVEL (RAndomized study with the sirolimus-eluting VElocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery Lesions) trial. Circulation 2002; 106: 798-803.
3. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, Fitzgerald PJ, Holmes DR, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1315-1323.
4. Schofer J, Schluter M, Gershlick AH, Wijns W, Garcia E, Schampaert E, Breithardt G,. Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: Double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS). Lancet 2003; 362: 1093-1099.
5. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, Hermiller J, O'Shaughnessy C, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 221-231.
6. Fajadet J, Wijns W, Laarman GJ, Kuck KH, Ormiston J, Munzel T, Popma JJ, Fitzgerald PJ, Bonan R, Kuntz RE,. Randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting phosphorylcholine-encapsulated stent for treatment of native coronary artery lesions: Clinical and angiographic results of the ENDEAVOR II trial. Circulation 2006; 114: 798-806.
7. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 961-972.
8. Adult Cardiac Surgery Database Executive Summary 10 Years. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, 2010. Available at: http://www.sts.org/sites/default/files/ documents/pdf/ndb2010/3rdHarvestExecutiveSummary2010.pdf.
9. Epstein AJ, Polsky D, Yang F, Yang L, Groeneveld PW,. Coronary revascularization trends in the United States, 2001-2008. JAMA 2011; 305: 1769-1776.
10. Lee TH, Hillis LD, Nabel EG,. CABG vs. stenting-clinical implications of the SYNTAX trial. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: e10.
11. Schachinger V, Herdeg C, Scheller B,. Best way to revascularize patients with main stem and three vessel lesions: Patients should undergo PCI! Clin Res Cardiol 2010; 99: 531-539.
12. Kawasuji M,. Debate over patient-centered care: Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting? Surg Today 2011; 41: 459-462.
13. Gulati R, Rihal C, Gersh B,. The SYNTAX trial: A perspective. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2: 463-467.
14. Holt CA, Laury SK,. Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev 2002; 92: 1644-1655.
15. Anderson LR, Mellor JM,. Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference. J Health Econ 2008; 27: 1260-1274.
16. Capodanno D, Capranzano P, Di Salvo ME, Caggegi A, Tomasello D, et al. Usefulness of SYNTAX score to select patients with left main coronary artery disease to be treated with coronary artery bypass graft. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2: 731-738.
17. Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garg S, Sarno G, van den Brand M, et al. Assessment of the SYNTAX score in the Syntax study. EuroIntervention 2009; 5: 50-56.
18. Kim YH, Park DW, Kim WJ, Lee JY, Yun SC, Kang SJ, Lee SW, Lee CW, Park SW, Park SJ,. Validation of SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score for prediction of outcomes after unprotected left main coronary revascularization. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3: 612-623.
19. Wilson RF, Berger AK,. Are all end points created equal? The case for weighting. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57: 546-548.
20. Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ, Morice MC, Holmes DR, Stahle E, Dawkins KD, Mohr FW, Serruys PW, Colombo A,. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-Year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 2125-2134.