LONDON, March 23 -- Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) are at least as effective as stenting, and maybe cheaper over the long haul.
Those conclusions come from three studies in the March 24 issue of BMJ, looking at the comparative efficacy, safety, and cost of minimally invasive internal thoracic artery bypass compared with percutaneous revascularization for isolated lesions of the left anterior descending artery.
For example, in a meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing CABG with percutaneuous coronary intervention with stenting, surgeon Thanos Athanasiou, M.D., of Imperial College London and colleagues, found that patients who received stents had higher rates of angina recurrence, adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and repeat revascularization.
The studies fuel the already burning debate surrounding the relative benefits versus costs and risks of stents, both the bare-metal and drug eluting variety, compared with CABG, noted heart surgeon David P Taggart M.D., of the University of Oxford, in an editorial.
1 comment:
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2008 7.25 million people died from coronary artery disease (CAD) around the world, and it is the number one killer of men and women in the United States. CAD is caused by the hardening of the coronary arteries, responsible for supplying the heart with blood necessary for it to function. Though many risk factors for CAD are out of our control, including gender, family history and age, many others aren't. List of hospital in Germany for CABG
Post a Comment