Comparison of Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Abstract

IntroductionPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are two common treatment options used in patients suffering from coronary artery disease. Selection and favorability of one over the other depend on individual clinical scenarios. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after treatment with PCI and CABG.MethodsThis longitudinal observational study was conducted from April 2018 to July 2019 in a cardiovascular unit of a tertiary care hospital. Participants who were eligible for revascularization were randomized either to receive stent (PCI) or surgery (CABG). Patients were then followed up for 12 months for the development of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).ResultsAt 12 months, patients randomized to the PCI group had an increased risk of repeat revascularization (21.3% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.007), whereas a similar number of patients in both groups died (3.8% vs. 3.7%), suffered myocardial infarction (7.6% vs. 5.6%), or had a cerebrovascular accident (3.8% vs. 2.8%).ConclusionsThis study showed that PCI had an increased risk of repeat revascularization compared to CABG. However, both had comparable significance in the development of MACEs. Nevertheless, there is a need for further study to better assess the outcomes of either, especially in the long run.