Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026

Evaluation of a Novel Laser-assisted Coronary Anastomotic Connector - the Trinity Clip - in a Porcine Off-pump Bypass Model
Published on: November 24, 2014
The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary
Chayakrit Krittanawong1, Affan Rizwan2, Muzamil Khawaja3
1Cardiology Division, NYU Langone Health and NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Chayakrit.Krittanawong@nyulangone.org.
Insights
Coronary artery bypass grafting generally offers better long-term outcomes for triple vessel disease compared to percutaneous coronary intervention. Both strategies are viable for left main and proximal LAD disease, with heart team input crucial for personalized treatment decisions.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Cardiac Surgery
Background:
- Optimal revascularization for coronary artery disease (CAD) is multifactorial, influenced by disease complexity, patient factors, and preferences.
- A heart team approach is vital for managing complex CAD cases and ensuring optimal patient outcomes.
- Choosing between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) requires careful consideration of individual clinical profiles and coronary anatomy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To comprehensively review current literature comparing CABG and PCI across various CAD phenotypes.
- To summarize evidence guiding revascularization strategy selection in contemporary practice.
- To highlight evolving data and decision-making tools for CAD treatment.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of contemporary literature on CABG versus PCI in CAD.
- Analysis of evidence stratified by CAD complexity (e.g., triple vessel disease, left main disease, proximal LAD disease).
- Inclusion of guideline recommendations and decision-support tools like the Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score.
Main Results:
- CABG is preferred for triple vessel disease due to superior long-term outcomes (lower death, MI, revascularization rates).
- For left main CAD, both PCI and CABG show similar efficacy, though PCI may carry a slightly higher mortality risk.
- For proximal LAD disease, CABG demonstrates better angina relief and lower repeat revascularization rates; SYNTAX score aids decision-making.
Conclusions:
- Revascularization strategy (CABG vs. PCI) should be individualized, guided by a heart team, and consider patient preferences.
- Evidence continues to evolve, necessitating ongoing evaluation of treatment efficacy and safety.
- Technological advancements and improved risk mitigation strategies will likely shape future revascularization guidelines.
Purpose Of Review:
The optimal revascularization strategy for coronary artery disease depends on various factors, such as disease complexity, patient characteristics, and preferences. Including a heart team in complex cases is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes. Decision-making between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting must consider each patient's clinical profile and coronary anatomy. While current practice guidelines offer some insight into the optimal revascularization approach for the various phenotypes of coronary artery disease, the evidence to support either strategy continues to evolve and grow. Given the large amount of contemporary data on revascularization, this review aims to comprehensively summarize the literature on coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients across the spectrum of coronary artery disease phenotypes.
Recent Findings:
Contemporary evidence suggests that for patients with triple vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting is preferred over percutaneous coronary intervention due to better long-term outcomes, including lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Similarly, for patients with left main coronary artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting can be considered, as they have shown similar efficacy in terms of major adverse cardiac events, but there may be a slightly higher risk of death with percutaneous coronary intervention. For proximal left anterior descending artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are viable options, but coronary artery bypass grafting has shown lower rates of repeat revascularization and better relief from angina. The Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score can help in decision-making by predicting the risk of adverse events and guiding the choice between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. European and American guidelines both agree with including a heart team that can develop and lay out individualized, optimal treatment options with respect for patient preferences. The debate between coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in multiple different scenarios will continue to develop as technology and techniques improve for both procedures. Risk factors, pre, peri, and post-procedural complications involved in both revascularization strategies will continue to be mitigated to optimize outcomes for those patients for which coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention provide ultimate benefit. Methods to avoid unnecessary revascularization continue to develop as well as percutaneous technology that may allow patients to avoid surgical intervention when possible. With such changes, revascularization guidelines for specific patient populations may change in the coming years, which can serve as a limitation of this time-dated review.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care

