Comparison of Bare-Metal Stenting With Minimally Invasive Bypass Surgery for Stenosis of the Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery A 5-Year Follow-Up

University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Saxony, Germany
Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.43). 11/2005; 112(22):3445-50. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.578492
Source: PubMed


Randomized trials comparing stenting with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending lesions have shown a significantly higher reintervention rate for stenting and similar results for mortality and reinfarction at short-term follow-up. Long-term follow-up data are sparse.
Patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending stenosis were randomized to either surgery (n=110) or bare-metal stenting (n=110). At 5 years, follow-up data were obtained with respect to the primary end point of death, reinfarction, or repeated target vessel revascularization. Clinical symptoms were assessed by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification. Follow-up information was completed for 216 patients (98.2%), and mean follow-up was 5.6+/-1.2 years. With respect to mortality (surgery, 12%; stenting, 10%; P=0.54) and reinfarctions (surgery, 7%; stenting, 5%; P=0.46), there were no differences between treatment strategies. The need for repeated target vessel revascularization was significantly higher after stenting (32%) compared with surgery (10%; P<0.001). Clinical symptoms improved significantly in both treatment groups compared with baseline; however, there was a favorable trend for surgery (stenting: CCS, 2.6+/-0.9 to 0.5+/-0.8, P<0.001; surgery: CCS, 2.6+/-0.9 to 0.3+/-0.6, P<0.001; P=0.05, stenting versus surgery).
At the 5-year follow-up, minimally invasive bypass surgery and bare-metal stenting showed similar results for the end points of mortality and reinfarctions. However, the reintervention rate is higher after stenting, and the relief in clinical symptoms is slightly better after surgery.

12 Reads
  • Source
    • "Diegeler et al. first published complete results of an RCT in 2002 reporting a 6-month follow-up [23]. A five-year follow-up was reported from Thiele et al. [24], and Blazek et al. reported a 10-year follow-up in 2013 [13]. Included in this meta-analysis is the publication from Blazek complemented with all available previously published data. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting are both established therapeutic options for single-vessel disease of the left anterior descending artery (LAD). The present systematic review with meta-analysis aims to determine the current strength of evidence for or against PCI and MIDCAB for revascularization of the LAD. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials (OTs) that reported clinical outcome after isolated LAD revascularization. Analysed postoperative outcomes included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. Pooled treatment effects [odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)] were assessed using a fixed- or random-effects model. A total of 2885 patients from 12 studies (6 RCTs, 6 OTs) were identified after a literature search of major databases using a predefined list of keywords. PCI of the LAD was performed in 60.7% (n = 1751) and MIDCAB in 39.3% of patients (n = 1126). Pooled-effect estimates revealed an increased incidence for MACCEs after PCI (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.45-2.69; P < 0.0001) 6 months after the procedure. Especially, PCI was particularly associated with an increased odds for target vessel revascularization (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.00-4.47; P = 0.0295). No differences with regard to stroke, myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality were observed between both revascularization strategies. Patients after PCI had a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD -3.37 days; 95% CI (-)4.92 to (-)1.81; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, the present systematic review underscores the superiority of MIDCAB over PCI for treatment of single-vessel disease of the LAD.
    European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 08/2014; 47(3). DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezu285 · 3.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The MIDCAB operation is more costly than bare metal stenting and more challenging than conventional CABG [14]. On the other hand, a high reintervention rate during the first 6 months equals the initial cost savings of the procedure [15]. For countries like ours which import the stents and which have cheap human resources, MIDCAB may even have equal or lower costs than the stenting procedures. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) offers arterial revascularization of the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery especially in lesions unsuitable for percutaneous coronary interventions. By avoidance of sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass its invasiveness is less than that of conventional bypass surgery. We in this study discuss our surgical experience in the MIDCAB procedure. Thirteen patients were operated on with the MIDCAB procedure. The inclusion criteria for MIDCAB were pure LAD disease totally occluded or severely stenotic. Patient demographics and preoperative and postoperative data were analyzed. Mean age of the patients was 60.0 ±8.6 years. Patients' preoperative and postoperative levels of cardiac CK-MB (creatine kinase MB) were not significantly different (p = 0.993). However, cardiac troponin I (p < 0.001), hemoglobin (p < 0.001) and hematocrit (p < 0.001) were significantly different. No perioperative myocardial infarctions or cerebrovascular accidents were seen. The patients were discharged at a mean day of 4.77 with oral antiaggregant therapy. No mortality was seen in the study population. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass is associated with few perioperative complications. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass in our experience is a very good option for single vessel LAD disease.
    Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques / Wideochirurgia i Inne Techniki Malo Inwazyjne 03/2013; 8(1):74-9. DOI:10.5114/wiitm.2011.30945 · 1.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Furthermore, when stenting is feasible, it may not be taken into account in the choice of revascularization strategy [27]. However, the re-intervention rates have been higher after bare-metal stenting than bypass surgery of the proximal LAD [28]. With the advent of drug-eluting stents, a reduction has been achieved in restenosis rates after stenting in proximal LAD. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous studies have shown that lesions in proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) may develop more restenosis after balloon angioplasty than lesions in other coronary segments. However, stenting seems to have reduced this gap. In this study, we compared outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on proximal LAD versus proximal left circumflex (LCX) or right coronary artery (RCA) and proximal versus non-proximal LAD. From 1737 patients undergoing PCI between March 2004 and 2005, those with cardiogenic shock, primary PCI, total occlusions, and multivessel or multi-lesion PCI were excluded. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared in 408 patients with PCI on proximal LAD versus 133 patients with PCI on proximal LCX/RCA (study I) and 244 patients with PCI on non-proximal LAD (study II). From our study populations, 449 patients in study I and 549 patients in study II participated in complete follow-up programs, and long-term PCI outcomes were compared within these groups. The statistical methods included Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, student's t-test, stratification methods, multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards model. In the proximal LAD vs. proximal LCX/RCA groups, smoking and multivessel disease were less frequent and drug-eluting stents were used more often (p = 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Patients had longer and smaller-diameter stents (p = 0.009, p < 0.001, respectively). In the proximal vs. non-proximal LAD groups, multivessel disease was less frequent (p = 0.05). Patients had larger reference vessel diameters (p < 0.001) and were more frequently treated with stents, especially direct stenting technique (p < 0.001). Angiographic success rate was higher in the proximal LAD versus proximal LCX/RCA and non-proximal LAD groups (p = 0.004 and p = 0.05, respectively). In long-term follow-up, major adverse cardiac events showed no difference. After statistical adjustment for significant demographic, angiographic or procedural characteristics, long-term PCI outcomes were still similar in the proximal LAD versus proximal LCX/RCA and non-proximal LAD groups. Despite the known worse prognosis of proximal LAD lesions, in the era of stenting, our long-term outcomes were similar in patients with PCI on proximal LAD versus proximal LCX/RCA and non-proximal LAD. Furthermore, we had better angiographic success rates in patients with PCI on proximal LAD.
    BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 03/2007; 7(1):7. DOI:10.1186/1471-2261-7-7 · 1.88 Impact Factor
Show more


12 Reads
Available from