Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies in stable ischemic heart disease: current perspective and literature review

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are established strategies for coronary revascularization in the setting of ischemic heart disease. Multiple randomized controlled trials and observational studies have compared the impact of the two modalities on the patients’ quality of life, mortality and morbidity, as well as the cost–effectiveness of these modalities in different clinical setting. CABG is the preferred strategy for revascularizations in patients with multi-vessel disease, especially in those with higher risk secondary to associated diabetes, left ventricular dysfunction or more complex lesions. PCI is a reasonable revascularization modality in patients with ischemia and single or low-risk multi-vessel disease and those with unprotected left main with low complexity anatomy. Compared with PCI, CABG is associated with less repeat revascularization, better quality of life and improved survival in high-risk patients. Although CABG is associated with higher cost, it is probably associated with a reasonable cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in many patients. Therefore, CABG will often be a cost-effective strategy, especially in patients with high angiographic complexity and/or diabetes.