Objective Bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions improve the clinical status of patients with left anterior descending coronary artery disease. However, these techniques differ in invasiveness and in the need for subsequent reinterventions. The development of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery and of drug-eluting stents (DES) offers perspectives to close this gap. Methods We compared the long-term clinical outcome of 308 patients after revascularization for isolated left anterior descending coronary artery disease. One hundred fifty-four patients were treated with MIDCAB and 154 with percutaneous coronary interventions and DES implantation. Results Both groups were similar in age (63 ± 13 and 62 ± 10 years), Euroscore (3.3 ± 2.8 and 3.4 ± 2.6), and mean duration of follow-up (30 ± 17 and 24 ± 10 months). Two-year survival was similar after MIDCAB and after DES (97.4% and 94.8%). During follow-up, four patients (2.6%) of the MIDCAB group and 21 patients (13.6%) of the DES group needed subsequent revascularization of the target vessel (P = 0.001). Revascularization of a nontarget vessel was needed in 11 patients (7%) of the MIDCAB group and in 17 patients (11%) of the DES group (NS). Neurologic complications included two transient ischemic accidents and two strokes in the MIDCAB group but three fatal cerebral hemorrhages and one stroke in the DES group. Major adverse coronary and cerebrovascular events rates were 14% in the MIDCAB and 31% in the DES group. Conclusions MIDCAB and DES implantation showed similar rates of mortality but a higher reintervention rate after DES. Anticoagulation implications remain critical for the future of DES.
Five-year follow-up of drug-eluting stents implantation vs minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass for left anterior descending artery disease: a propensity score analysis
