Stent or Surgery for Coronary Artery Disease?
SOS enrolled more than 900 patients with mutivessel coronary artery disease, and randomized them to have either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or stents. In this latest update of the results after six years of follow-up, CABG patients had a persistently better survival than stent patients (93.2% in CABG patients vs. 89.1% in stent patients).
Critics of the SoS trial point out many reasons cardiologists and their patients should not consider these results to be definitive, and they ask us to wait for several years, for more studies to be completed.
Waiting for several years for more data to become available is a nice idea, but it might not be an option for those who need to make decisions about their therapy today. For people in this position, here are some thoughts about how the SoS data might figure into your decision.
Comments
I had an MI at the age of 58; had unstable angina; multiple blocks too;mainly enormous stress because of politicians wrongdoing.
No surgical intervention. No medication after a fortnight except mild aspirin and supplements. And a high fibre, somewhat low fat diet.(skim milk,unprocessed olive /sesame oil unprocessed, plenty of vegetables, fried food once a month in small quantity) reasonable exercise and keeping cheerful.
Incidentally did both the groups follow identical(reasonably) lifestyles? otherwise the comparison may not be useful; and the small difference may not be significant!
that is crap – I had triple by pass and then a stent 2 yrs later. my 23 yr son had triple by pass and 5 stents where do you get your info
Politics as a cause for needing CABG, but then the political scene stays essentially the same (decade after decade) and the diet and activity changed for a short time and VOILA!!! you were cured?! That’s amazing. Now there’s some serious science!!