logo

CABG vs. Stenting:
Clinical Implications of the SYNTAX Trial

Closed for Comments
as of March 4, 2009

Thomas H. Lee, M.D., L. David Hillis, M.D., and Elizabeth G. Nabel, M.D.

In the international SYNTAX trial, 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either revascularization with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention involving drug-eluting stents. The need for repeat revascularization was significantly lower with CABG, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher — a tradeoff that must be considered in making clinical decisions regarding patients with advanced coronary disease. In a roundtable discussion moderated by Dr. Thomas Lee, cardiologists David Hillis and Elizabeth Nabel debate the implications of these findings for clinical practice.

Transcript of Video

Comments from readers were accepted through March 4, 2009.

Position

position chart
  • Physician -- Cardiologist (0)
  • Physician -- Non-Cardiologist (0)
  • Resident or Trainee (0)
  • Medical Student (0)
  • Other Health Care Professional (0)
  • Other (0)

Location

location chart
  • North America (0)
  • South America (0)
  • Europe (0)
  • Africa (0)
  • Asia (0)
  • Australia and Oceania (0)
 

Related Articles

  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Severe Coronary Artery Disease

    Patrick W. Serruys and Others

    Full Text|PDF

  • Coronary Revascularization in Context

    Richard A. Lange and L. David Hillis

    Full Text|PDF

Advertisement

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.