Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Heart 2007;93:1188-1190; doi:10.1136/hrt.2007.124750
Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Cardiovascular Society

VIEWPOINT

PCI or CABG: which patients and at what cost?

Tony Gershlick1, Martyn Thomas2

1 Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK
2 Kings College Hospital, London, UK

Correspondence to:
Dr M Thomas, Department of Cardiology, Kings College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK; mttwins@aol.com

Accepted 28 May 2007

Abbreviations: AMI, acute myocardial infarction; BMS, bare metal stents; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; DES, drug-eluting stent; OMT, optimal medical treatment; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention

Keywords: percutaneous coronary intervention; coronary bypass grafting

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Major changes in the management of symptomatic obstructive coronary artery disease have been seen in the past 10 years with a substantial shift towards percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the UK in 2005, for example, 73 000 PCIs were performed compared with 22 000 isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures.1 Recently, there has been much debate about which of these two revascularisation options is "better" as measured by clinical outcome and overall cost effectiveness. This editorial will attempt to redress the balance on the use of PCI versus medical treatment in stable angina and its use in multivessel disease.

PCI VS MEDICAL TREATMENT IN STABLE CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE

Some have interpreted the recently published COURAGE trial,2 which randomised (after coronary angiography) 2287 patients with positive non-invasive tests to either optimal medical treatment (OMT) or PCI, as indicating that OMT is equivalent to PCI for stable coronary artery disease and suggested that PCI is an overcostly, overused procedure. . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Percutaneous coronary revascularisation: is it ever worth what it costs?
Daniel B Mark
Heart 2007 93: 1161-1163. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.