Objective: We sought to compare minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (surgical intervention) with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with primary stenting (stenting) in patients having an isolated high-grade stenosis (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification type B2 or C) of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. At 6 months, both procedures were compared on the basis of quantitative angiography and clinical outcome.
Methods: Both treatments were compared in a single-center, prospective, randomized study. The primary end point of this study was quantitative angiographic outcome at 6 months. The secondary end point was 6-month clinical outcome. Statistical analysis was performed in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle.
Results: From March 1997 to September 1999, patients with angina pectoris caused by an isolated high-grade stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery were randomly assigned to surgical intervention (n = 51) or stenting (n = 51). At 6 months, quantitative coronary angiography showed an anastomotic stenosis rate of 4% after surgical intervention and a restenosis rate of 29% after stenting (P <.001). Periprocedural events did not significantly differ between surgical intervention and stenting. After surgical intervention, 2 patients died; no patients died after stenting. After 6 months, no significant difference was found for major adverse cardiac or cerebral events and need for repeat target vessel revascularization. After 6 months, return of angina pectoris, physical work capacity, and use of antianginal drugs did not significantly differ between treatments.
Conclusions: After 6 months, surgical intervention had a significantly better angiographic outcome than stenting in patients with an isolated high-grade stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. Clinical outcome did not significantly differ between treatments.