Current Cardiology Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 247–254 | Cite as

Surgical, medical, and percutaneous therapies for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease



Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) are now faced with a number of treatment choices, including coronary artery bypass graft surgery, medical therapy, and percutaneous coronary interventions (using bare-metal or drug-eluting stents). Each carries certain benefits and risks: bypass surgery is favored in the subset of patients with multivessel disease and diabetes or impaired left ventricular systolic function who are able to receive a left internal mammary artery graft; medical therapy consisting of β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, statins, aspirin, and nitrates is offered to patients with stable angina. Percutaneous procedures have previously been limited in their efficacy by restenosis and resulting morbidity, but contemporary stenting procedures appear to show equivalent mortality and morbidity outcomes (to bypass surgery) at 5 years. Drugeluting stents are the newest percutaneous technique and show significant reduction in restenosis compared with older catheter-based therapies, but further investigation is needed to definitively define the role of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of multivessel CAD. This review summarizes the data comparing medical, surgical, and percutaneous treatment approaches for patients with multivessel CAD.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Rogers WJ, Coggin CJ, Gersh, BJ, et al.: Ten-year follow-up of quality of life in patients randomized to receive medical therapy or coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS). Circulation 1990, 82:1647–1658.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis KB, Chaitman B, Ryan T, et al.: Comparison of 15-year survival for men and women after initial medical or surgical treatment for coronary artery disease: a CASS Registry Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995, 25:1000–1009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Myers WO, Blackstone EH, Davis K, et al.: CASS Registry: long term surgical survival. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 33:488–498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alderman EL, Bourassa MG, Cohen LS, et al.: dTen-year follow-up of survival and myocardial infarction in the randomized coronary artery surgery study. Circulation 82:1629-1646.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CASS Principal Investigators and Their Associates: Myocardial infarction and mortality in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) randomized trial. N Engl J Med 1984, 310:750–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CASS Principal Investigators and Their Associates: Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery: survival data. Circulation 1983, 68:939–950.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al.: Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med 1986, 314:1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Passamani E, Davis KB, Gillespie MJ, et al.: A randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery: Survival of patients with a low ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 1985, 312:1665–1671.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Myers WO, Schaff HV, Gersh BJ, et al.: Improved survival of surgically treated patients with triple vessel coronary artery disease and severe angina pectoris. A report from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS)registry. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1989, 97:487–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yusuf, S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al.: Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet 1994, 344:563–570.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Hueb W, Soares PR, Gersh BJ, et al.: The Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS-II): a randomized, controlled clinical trial of three therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease: one year results J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 43:1743–1751.Comparative trial of medical, surgical, and percutaneous treatment in patients with stable anginaPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The BARI Investigators: Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 1996, 335:217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The BARI Investigators: Seven-year outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) by treatment and diabetic statusJ Am Coll Cardiol 2000, 35:1122–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The BARI Investigators: Influence of diabetes on 5-year mortality and morbidity in a randomized trial comparing CABG and PTCA in patients with multivessel disease. Circulation 1997, 96:1761–1769.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whitlow PL, Dimas AP, Bashore TM, et al.: Relationship of extent of revascularization with angina at one year in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 34:1750–1759.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson RA, Pocock SJ, Sharp SJ, et al.: Long-term results of RITA-1 trial: clinical and cost comparisons of coronary angioplasty and coronary-artery bypass grafting. Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina. Lancet 1998, 352:1419–1425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hamm CW, Reimers J, Ischinger T, et al.: A randomized study of coronary angioplasty compared with bypass surgery in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 1994, 331:1037–1043.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G, et al.: Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:2174–2183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gwon HC, Choi SH, Choi BW, et al.: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for diabetics with multivessel coronary artery disease: the Korean Multicenter Revascularization Registry (KORR). J Korean Med Sci 2005, 20:196–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Rodriguez AE, Baldi J, Pereira CF, et al.: Five-year follow-up of the Argentine Randomized Trial of Coronary Angioplasty With Stenting Versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in Patients With Multivessel Disease (ERACI II). J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 46:582–588.Surgical versus bare-metal stenting in patients with multivessel coronary diseasePubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Serruys PW, Ong ATL, van Herwerden LA, et al.: Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the Final Analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) Randomized Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 46:575–581.Surgical versus bare-metal stenting in patients with multivessel coronary diseasePubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ARTS II: Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study Part II — sirolimus-eluting stents vs PCI and CABG at 1 year. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Macaya C, Garcia H, Serruys P, et al.: Sirolimus-eluting stent versus surgery and bare metal stenting in the treatment of diabetic patients with multivessel disease — a comparison between ARTS II and ARTS I. Circulation 2005, 112(Suppl):3084.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beyar R, Seabra-Gomes R, Crean P, et al.: Three-year subgroup analysis of the E-SIRIUS Trial: diabetic vs nondiabetic patients. Circulation 2005, 112(Suppl):3086.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buchbinder M, Chan C, Zambahari R, et al.: One year clinical outcomes in diabetic patients with multivessel disease treated with sirolimus-eluting or bare-metal stents: results from the DECODE study. Circulation 2005, 112(Suppl):3083.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumbhani DJ, Bavry AA, Helton TJ, Bhatt DL: The effect of drug-eluting stents on clinical and angiographic outcomes in diabetic patients. Circulation 2005, 112(Suppl):3081.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kelley MP, Klugherz BD, Hashemi SM, et al.: One-year clinical outcomes of protected and unprotected left main coronary artery stenting. Eur Heart J 2003, 24:1554–1559.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chieffo A, Stankovic G, Bonizzoni E, et al.: Early and mid-term results of drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main. Circulation 2005, 111:791–795.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee SH, Ko YG, Jang Y, et al.: Sirolimus-versus paclitaxeleluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Cardiology 2005, 104:181–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Smith SC, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW, et al.: ACC/AHA/ SCAI 2005 Guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention — summary article. Circulation 2006, 113:156–175. Updated guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association for use of PCI.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Cardiology, Evans Department of MedicineBoston Medical Center, Boston University School of MedicineBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations