Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation vs. minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) in patients with left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug‐eluting stents (DESs) versus minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery in the management of patients with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery stenosis. Until recent years, despite the advantages of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with bare metal stent implantation, such as shorter hospital stays and recovery time, MIDCAB showed better results with regard to the need for repeated intervention in the target vessel than PTCA with proximal LAD lesions. Symptomatic patients (n = 189) were randomly assigned to DES group (n = 119) and MIDCAB group (n = 70). Patients with an isolated high‐grade lesion (stenosis of ≥ 70% of the luminal diameter) in the proximal LAD coronary artery (from the ostium to the first diagonal branch) were included in this study. During the 6‐month follow‐up period, 1.7% (n = 2) in the DES group needed repeated revascularization procedures for target lesion revascularization compared with 5.9% (n = 4) in the MIDCAB group (P = 0.196). The rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar in both groups [DES 0.0% (n = 0) vs. MIDCAB 2.9% (n = 2), P = 0.135; DES 1.7% (n = 2) vs. MIDCAB 2.9% (n = 2), P = 0.627; respectively] during 6 months of follow‐up. In‐hospital length of stay was significantly shorter in the DES group compared with the MIDCAB group (5.8 ± 2.1 days vs. 8.9 ± 2.6 days; P = 0.001). DES implantation and MIDCAB surgery showed similar rates of myocardial infarction, the need for repeated revascularization, and death during 6 months of follow‐up. However, DES implantation resulted in lower average number of hospital stays and similar postoperative complications. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;64:75–81.