Background-The importance of complete revascularization remains unclear and contradictory. This current investigation compares the effect of complete revascularization on 10-year survival of patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) who were randomly assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Methods and Results-This is a post hoc analysis of the Second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II), which is a randomized trial comparing treatments in patients with stable multivessel CAD, and preserved systolic ventricular function. We analyzed patients who underwent surgery (CABG) or stent angioplasty (PCI). The survival free of overall mortality of patients who underwent complete (CR) or incomplete revascularization (IR) was compared. Of the 408 patients randomly assigned to mechanical revascularization, 390 patients (95.6%) underwent the assigned treatment; complete revascularization was achieved in 224 patients (57.4%), 63.8% of those in the CABG group and 36.2% in the PCI group (Pϭ0.001). The IR group had more prior myocardial infarction than the CR group (56.2%ϫ39.2%, Pϭ0.01). During a 10-year follow-up, the survival free of cardiovascular mortality was significantly different among patients in the 2 groups (CR, 90.6% versus IR, 84.4%; Pϭ0.04). This was mainly driven by an increased cardiovascular specific mortality in individuals with incomplete revascularization submitted to PCI (Pϭ0.05). Conclusions-Our study suggests that in 10-year follow-up, CR compared with IR was associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality, especially due to a higher increase in cardiovascular-specific mortality in individuals submitted to PCI. Clinical Trial Registration Information-URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Registration number: ISRCTN66068876.(Circulation. 2012;126[suppl 1]:S158 -S163.)
Background-The Second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) included patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and normal systolic ventricular function. Patients underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG, nϭ203), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, nϭ205), or medical treatment alone (MT, nϭ203). This investigation compares the economic outcome at 5-year follow-up of the 3 therapeutic strategies. Methods and Results-We analyzed cumulative costs during a 5-year follow-up period. To analyze the cost-effectiveness, adjustment was made on the cumulative costs for average event-free time and angina-free proportion. Respectively, for event-free survival and event plus angina-free survival, MT presented 3.79 quality-adjusted life-years and 2.07 quality-adjusted life-years; PCI presented 3.59 and 2.77 quality-adjusted life-years; and CABG demonstrated 4.4 and 2.81 quality-adjusted life-years. The event-free costs were $9071.00 for MT; $19 967.00 for PCI; and $18 263.00 for CABG. The paired comparison of the event-free costs showed that there was a significant difference favoring MT versus PCI (PϽ0.01) and versus CABG (PϽ0.01) and CABG versus PCI (Pϭ0.01). The event-free plus angina-free costs were $16 553.00, $25 831.00, and $24 614.00, respectively. The paired comparison of the event-free plus angina-free costs showed that there was a significant difference favoring MT versus PCI (Pϭ0.04), and versus CABG (PϽ0.001); there was no difference between CABG and PCI (PϾ0.05). Conclusions-In the long-term economic analysis, for the prevention of a composite primary end point, MT was more cost effective than CABG, and CABG was more cost-effective than PCI. Clinical Trial Registration Information-www.controlled-trials.com. Registration number: ISRCTN66068876. (Circulation. 2012;126[suppl 1]:S145-S150.)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.