Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The SYNTAX study

  • Published:
Clinical Research in Cardiology Supplements Aims and scope

Abstract

The SYNTAX study randomized patients (pts) with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD) into pts who underwent bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The primary endpoint of the study was a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, repeated revascularization)(MACCE). Rates of MACCE at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%) than in the CAGB group (12.4%, p < 0.002). This was caused by an increased rate of repeated revascularizations in PCI pts (13.5%) compared to CABG pts (5.9%, p < 0.001). The rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups. Stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%) versus 0.6% with PCI (p = 0.003). Despite the results of the SYNTAX study, an individual strategy is necessary for each patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barner HB (2008) Operative treatment for coronary atherosclerosis. Ann Thorac Surg 85:1473–1482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Birnbaum Y, Drew BJ (2003) The electrocardiogram in ST elevation acute myocardial infarction: correlation with coronary anatomy and prognosis. Postgrad Med J 79:490–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Booth J, Clayton T, Petter J et al (2008) Randomized, controlled trial of coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: six-year follow-up from the Stent or Surgery Trial (SoS). Circulation 118:381–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bravata DM, Gienger AL, McDonald KM et al (2007) Systematic review: the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Intern Med 147:703–716

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brener SJ, Galla JM, Bryant R III, Sabik JF III, Ellis SG (2008) Comparison of percutaneous versus surgical revascularization of severe unprotected left main coronary stenosis in matched patients. Am J Cardiol 101:169–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brigouri C, Condorelli G, Airoldi F et al (2007) Comparison of coronary drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 99:779–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Daemen J, Boersma E, Flatheter M et al (2008) Long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and coronary artery bypass surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: a metaanalysis with 5-year patient-level data from the ARTS, ERACI-II, Mass-II, and SoS trials. Circulation 118:1146–1154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Favoloro RG 1968) Saphenous vein autograft replacement of severe segmental coronary artery occlusion: operative technique. Ann Thorac Surg 5:334–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fiol M, Cygankiewicz I, Carillo A et al (2004) Value of electrocardiographic algorithm based on “ups and downs” of ST in assessment of a culprit artery in evolving inferior wall acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 94:709–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Flynn M, Reddy S, Shepherd W et al (2004) Fast-tracking revisted: routine cardiac surgical patients need minimal intensive care. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 25:116–122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Grüntzig A (1978) Transluminal dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis. Lancet 1:63

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hamm C (2009) SYNTAX-Studie. Nichts Neues am Kathetertisch. Kardiologe 3:294–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G et al (2008) Drug-eluting stents vs. Coronary-artery bypass grafting in multovessel coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 358:331–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Janssen DP, Noyes L, Wouters C, Brouwer RM (2004) Preoperative prediction of prolonged stay in the intensive care unit for coronary bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 25:203–207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Serruys PW, Kutryk MJB, Ong ATL (2006) Coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med 354:483–495

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappestein AP et al (2009) Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 360:961–972

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith SC Jr, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW Jr et al (2006) ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol 47:e1–e121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S et al (2007) Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet 370:937–948

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Yamaji H, Iwaschachi S, Kusachi S, Murkemi T, Hirami R et al (2001) Prediction of acute left main coronary obstruction by 12-lead electrocardiogram: ST segment elevation in lead aVR with less ST segment elevation in lead V1. J Am Coll Cardiol 38:1348–1354

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medizinische Klinik II (Schwerpunkte Kardiologie und Angiologie), Marienhospital Herne, Klinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Hölkeskampring 40, 44625, Herne, Germany

    Hans-Joachim Trappe

Authors
  1. Hans-Joachim Trappe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans-Joachim Trappe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trappe, HJ. The SYNTAX study. Clin Res Cardiol Suppl 5 (Suppl 1), 70–74 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11789-010-0004-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11789-010-0004-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation