JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 46:582-588, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.12.081 (Published online 27 July 2005).
© 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow View Online Only Appendix
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JACC
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (24)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rodriguez, A. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rodriguez, A. E.

Five-Year Follow-Up of the Argentine Randomized Trial of Coronary Angioplasty With Stenting Versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in Patients With Multiple Vessel Disease (ERACI II)

Alfredo E. Rodriguez, MD, PhD, FACC*, Julio Baldi, MD, PhD*, Carlos Fernández Pereira, MD*, Jose Navia, MD*, Máximo Rodriguez Alemparte, MD*, Alejandro Delacasa, MD{dagger}, Federico Vigo, MD*, Daniel Vogel, MD*, William O'Neill, MD, FACC{ddagger}, Igor F. Palacios, MD, FACC,§,* on behalf of the ERACI II Investigators

* Otamendi Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina
{dagger} Sanatorio Belgrano, Mar del Plata, Argentina
{ddagger} William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
§ Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts



View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Comparison of survival of patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

 


View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Comparison of non-fatal myocardial infarction of patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

 


View larger version (10K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3 Comparison of repeat revascularization procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) of patients treated with CABG (square symbols) versus PCI (round symbols).

 


View larger version (10K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 5 Comparison of freedom from major adverse cardiovascular events (alive and free of non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke or repeat revascularization procedures) of patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (square symbols) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (round symbols).

 


View larger version (28K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 4 Comparison of freedom from angina between patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (solid bars) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (gray bars).

 





HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.