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


     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2003; 41:1732-1738, doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00330-9
© 2003 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in this journal
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rumsfeld, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rumsfeld, J. S.

CLINICAL RESEARCH

Health-related quality of life after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in high-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia

John S. Rumsfeld, MD, PhD, FACC*{dagger},*, David J. Magid, MD, MPH{dagger}{ddagger}, Mary E. Plomondon, MSPH*, Jerome Sacks, PhD§, William Henderson, PhD{dagger}, Mark Hlatky, MD||, Gulshan Sethi, MD, Douglass A. Morrison, MD, FACC Veterans Affairs Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality (AWESOME) Investigators

* Cardiology and Health Services Research, Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, USA
{dagger} University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado, USA
{ddagger} Clinical Research Unit, Colorado Permanente Medical Group, Denver, Colorado, USA
§ Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Hines Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hines, Illinois, USA
|| Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Tucson Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

Manuscript received August 9, 2002; revised manuscript received December 31, 2002, accepted February 13, 2003.

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. John S. Rumsfeld, Cardiology (111B), Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 1055 Clermont Street, Denver, Colorado 80220, USA.
john.rumsfeld{at}med.va.gov


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
OBJECTIVES: We compared six-month health-related quality of life (HRQL) for high-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates after PCI and CABG surgery are similar. Therefore, differences in HRQL outcomes may help in the selection of a revascularization procedure.

METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a Veterans Affairs multicenter randomized trial comparing PCI versus CABG for patients with medically refractory ischemia and one or more risk factors for adverse outcome; 389 of 423 patients (92%) alive six months after randomization completed an Short Form-36 (SF-36) health status survey. Primary outcomes were the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores from the SF-36. Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate whether PCI or CABG surgery was associated with better PCS or MCS scores after adjusting for over 20 baseline variables.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences in either PCS scores (38.7 vs. 37.3 for PCI and CABG, respectively; p = 0.23) or MCS scores (45.5 vs. 46.1, p = 0.58) between the treatment arms. In multivariable models, there remained no difference in HRQL for post-PCI versus post-CABG patients (for PCS, absolute difference = 0.56 ± standard error of 1.14, p = 0.63; for MCS, absolute difference = –1.23 ± 1.12, p = 0.27). We had 97% power to detect a four-point difference in scores, where four to seven points is a clinically important difference.

CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia randomized to PCI versus CABG surgery have equivalent six-month HRQL. Therefore, HRQL concerns should not drive decision-making regarding selection of a revascularization procedure for these patients.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  AWESOME
  Department of Veterans Affairs Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality study
  BARI
  Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation trial
  CABG
  coronary artery bypass graft
  CABRI
  Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularization Investigation trial
  EAST
  Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery trial
  HRQL
  health-related quality of life
  IABP
  intra-aortic balloon pump
  MCS
  Mental Component Summary
  MI
  myocardial infarction
  PCI
  percutaneous coronary intervention
  PCS
  Physical Component Summary
  RITA
  Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina study
  SF-36
  Short Form-36
  VA
  Veterans Affairs

Multiple studies have demonstrated equivalent mortality between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery (1–9). At the same time, these investigations have consistently shown that patients who undergo PCI are much more likely to have recurrent angina and to require repeat procedures. Because angina is an important determinant of health-related quality of life (HRQL) (10–12), PCI patients could have worse HRQL outcomes compared with CABG patients despite equivalent mortality. On the other hand, CABG surgery is more invasive, and concerns remain about the impact of cardiopulmonary bypass on neurocognitive outcomes (13,14). Consequently, it is important to compare HRQL outcomes after PCI versus CABG surgery, because any significant differences may influence the choice of revascularization procedure.

Few randomized trials have included HRQL comparisons after PCI versus CABG surgery, and these studies have had conflicting results (15–19). Furthermore, HRQL outcomes have not been evaluated in high-risk patients, because they have been excluded from randomized trials (1–9,13). Specifically, previous trials have excluded patients with prior heart surgery, very recent myocardial infarction (MI), and severe left ventricular dysfunction.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality (AWESOME) study was specifically designed to compare outcomes after randomization to PCI versus CABG surgery for patients with medically refractory angina who were at high risk for adverse outcome (20). The primary clinical results of the AWESOME study demonstrated equivalent mortality between the PCI and CABG arms (21). The purpose of this study was to compare six-month HRQL outcomes after randomization to PCI versus CABG surgery in the AWESOME trial.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Study population.   The AWESOME randomized controlled trial was conducted at 16 VA medical centers between February 1995 and March 2000. The methods and primary clinical outcomes (mortality, recurrent unstable angina, and repeat revascularization procedure outcomes) have previously been published (20,21). To be enrolled in the AWESOME study, patients had to have evidence of myocardial ischemia refractory to medical management and one or more risk factors for adverse outcome with CABG surgery, including prior open-heart surgery, age >70 years, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, MI within seven days, or need for an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) to stabilize blood pressure. Eligible patients underwent coronary angiography. Patients with the following criteria were excluded from the study: single-vessel circumflex disease, unprotected left main stenosis >50%, no graftable or dilatable vessels, and/or comorbidity likely to limit patient life expectancy to <6 months. Patients with coronary anatomy deemed acceptable for randomization between PCI and CABG surgery by both the participating cardiothoracic surgeon and interventional cardiologist were approached for informed consent to participate in the trial. Human subject approval was obtained from the Hines Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center Human Rights Committee and the institutional review boards at all participating sites.

Of the 2,431 patients who met initial eligibility criteria for the study before coronary angiography, 781(32%) had coronary anatomy deemed acceptable for randomization to either revascularization method. These patients were approached for informed consent, and 454 (58%) consented to participate in the study. All patients enrolled in the study who were alive six months after randomization were sent a Short Form-36 (SF-36) health status survey. If patients did not respond to the initial survey, a second mailed survey was sent. If patients failed to return the mailed surveys, telephone administration of the survey was attempted. Of the 454 randomized patients, 423 (93.2%) were alive at six months, and 389 (92%) of these patients completed an SF-36 health status survey. A similar proportion of patients from the PCI group (n = 193, 91.5%) and CABG surgery group (n = 196, 92.5%) completed the SF-36. A six-month HRQL assessment was chosen because there was a reasonable expectation of full recovery from both procedures (e.g., it coincides with the primary timeframe for restenosis after PCI), and because numerous prior studies of HRQL after PCI and CABG surgery have assessed this time period (10,22–25).

Variables.   The outcome variables for this study were from the six-month SF-36 health status survey. This survey contains 36 questions that are used to measure eight health constructs including physical functioning, physical role functioning, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role functioning, and mental health (26,27). For example, with regard to physical health, patients are asked to rate how much their health limits their ability to do a series of activities ranging from bathing to running. As another example related to mental health, patients are asked to rate how much trouble they have had with work or other regular daily activities due to emotional problems such as feeling depressed or anxious. The complete SF-36 can be viewed at http://www.sf36.com.

The Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, reflecting overall physical and mental health status, respectively, are derived from the eight original scales of the SF-36 (Fig. 1). The summary scores are standardized to the general U.S. population (mean ± SD; 50 ± 10), allowing easier norm-based interpretation. Scoring of the SF-36 for the original eight scales and the PCS and MCS summary scores followed the methods of Ware et al. (27).



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1 The relationship between the eight original scales of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the two summary scores. Figure adapted from Ware and Kosinski (27); reproduced with permission; SF-36 Health Survey, copyright 1988, 2002 by Medical Outcomes Trust and QualityMetric Inc. All rights reserved; SF-36 is a registered trademark of the Medical Outcomes Trust.

 
The primary predictor variable of interest for this study was randomization to either PCI or CABG surgery. Other candidate predictor variables included the wide array of demographic, cardiac history, and noncardiac history variables listed in Table 1. There was <5% missing data for all of the Table 1 variables except current smoking (27%) and peripheral vascular disease (6%), and there were no differences in missing data between the PCI and CABG surgery cohorts.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population by Treatment Group

 
Statistical analyses.   The objective of this study was to determine whether patients randomized to PCI versus CABG surgery were at risk for worse six-month physical and/or mental health status outcomes. Primary analyses were conducted with the PCS and MCS scores from the SF-36 as outcome variables. Secondary analyses were conducted using the original eight scales of the SF-36 as outcome variables.

Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to PCI versus CABG surgery were compared using t tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. We also compared baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not complete the six-month SF-36 survey. The bivariate relationship between revascularization assignment (PCI vs. CABG) and the SF-36 outcome variables was evaluated using least-squares linear regression. Then, a series of multiple linear regression models were developed to: 1) determine the predictors of PCS and MCS scores for the overall study population, and 2) assess PCI versus CABG surgery as a predictor of HRQL, adjusted for baseline patient characteristics.

Regression models were developed by applying backward selection to the Table 1 variables (p < 0.05 to remain in model), and then adding the revascularization variable (PCI vs. CABG) to the selected models. Unselected regression models were also developed including all of the variables listed in Table 1 as well as the revascularization assignment variable (PCI vs. CABG) to maximally control for confounding. The results of the selected and unselected models were similar, and the parameter estimates from the selected models are presented in this article.

Subgroup analyses were performed to compare HRQL outcomes between the PCI and CABG cohorts within the following patient groups: age >70 years versus <70 years, Caucasian versus non-Caucasian race, and stratified by prior CABG surgery, MI within seven days, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These subgroups were chosen because these factors have been associated with HRQL in other studies (28,29).

All analyses were conducted with an intention-to-treat approach based on initial randomization, and there was only one crossover in the PCI cohort and six crossovers in the CABG surgery cohort in the six-month follow-up period. All analyses were done using SAS version 8.02 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Power calculations were done using PASS software 2000 (NCSS Statistical Software, Kaysville, Utah). We had 82% power to detect a three-point difference, and 97% power to detect a four-point difference, in PCS and MCS scores between the PCI and CABG cohorts, where four to seven points is considered a minimal clinically important difference (27,30).


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Baseline characteristics of the study population are compared between the PCI and CABG surgery cohorts in Table 1. There were no significant differences in demographics, prior cardiac history, and noncardiac history between patients assigned to PCI versus CABG surgery. Overall, the mean age of the study population was 67.4 years, and over one-half of the patients were >70 years old. Approximately 30% of the patients had a history of prior CABG surgery, 32% of the patients had experienced an MI within seven days, 20% had a left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, and 1.3% required an IABP before randomization. There was a significant burden of comorbidity, including diabetes (31%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (22%), and peripheral vascular disease (16%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between those patients that did or did not complete the six-month SF-36 survey except for IABP (1.3% for responders, 5.9% for nonresponders, p = 0.04).

Unadjusted physical and mental health status outcomes are compared between patients assigned to PCI versus CABG surgery in Table 2 and Figures 2 and 3. There were no significant differences in physical or mental health status outcomes between the PCI and CABG cohorts. In subgroup analyses, there were no significant differences in PCS or MCS scores for the age, race, prior CABG surgery, recent MI, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease subgroups. In diabetics, there was a trend toward lower PCS scores for patients assigned to CABG surgery versus PCI (34.7 vs. 38.1, p = 0.10), but no difference in MCS scores (46.0 vs. 46.5, p = 0.83).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Comparison of Unadjusted Physical and Mental Health Status Outcomes From the SF-36

 


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2 Comparison of Short Form-36 physical health scale scores between patients randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. BP = bodily pain; GH = general health; PCS = Physical Component Summary; PF = physical functioning; PRF = physical role functioning. Solid bars = coronary artery bypass graft surgery; hatched bars = percutaneous coronary intervention.

 


View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3 Comparison of Short Form-36 mental health scale scores between patients randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. ERF = emotional role functioning; MCS = Mental Component Summary; MH = mental health; SF = social functioning; VT = vitality. Solid bars = coronary artery bypass graft surgery; hatched bars = percutaneous coronary intervention.

 
In multivariable analyses, significant predictors of worse six-month physical health status (PCS scores) for the total study population were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and elevated serum creatinine (Table 3). Significant predictors of worse six-month mental health status (MCS scores) were current smoking and a history of hypertension. Treatment with a beta-blocker was associated with better six-month mental health status.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Multivariable Risk Models for Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores for the Overall Study Population*

 
Revascularization assignment (PCI vs. CABG) was not significantly associated with any of the SF-36 outcome variables in the multivariable models. After adjustment for demographic, cardiac history, and noncardiac history variables, the absolute difference in PCS scores for post-PCI versus post-CABG patients was 0.56 ± standard error of 1.14 (p = 0.63), and the absolute difference in MCS scores was –1.23 ± standard error of 1.12 (p = 0.27).


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The objective of this study was to compare six-month HRQL outcomes for high-risk patients with medically refractory angina who were randomized to PCI versus CABG surgery. We found equivalent HRQL outcomes for the post-PCI and post-CABG patients. Similar results were noted in analyses adjusting for over 20 demographic, cardiac, and comorbid variables, as well as in subgroup analyses.

This study expands the previous literature by the inclusion of high-risk patients excluded from previous trials, namely those with prior heart surgery, age >70, ejection fraction <0.35, MI within seven days, and/or need for preprocedure IABP. A previous meta-analysis stated that no firm conclusions could be drawn with regard to outcomes after PCI versus CABG surgery for high-risk patients because there was only observational data (31). This study helps close this gap in the literature.

Multiple previous studies have demonstrated improvements in HRQL from pre- to postprocedure for both PCI and CABG surgery (10,12,22–25,32), but few studies have compared HRQL outcomes between the two procedures. Furthermore, the results of previous randomized trials comparing HRQL after PCI versus CABG surgery have been inconsistent. The Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularization Investigation (CABRI) trial found equivalent one-year HRQL outcomes for patients randomized to PCI versus CABG surgery (15). The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) trial found better physical function for CABG surgery patients compared with PCI patients in the first three years after revascularization, but HRQL outcomes were equivalent after three years (16,17). Finally, both the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) study and Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST) found that patients randomized to PCI had some HRQL impairment compared with those randomized to CABG surgery (18,19).

Therefore, the results of this study are consistent with both the CABRI and BARI long-term follow-up studies. The reasons why the results of this study, as well as CABRI and BARI, differ from the RITA and EAST trials are unknown. However, the HRQL deficits for PCI patients in RITA and EAST were directly correlated to recurrent angina. One may speculate that advances in PCI such as stents may have reduced post-PCI angina burden. Also, HRQL assessment varied substantially for each study. For example, the EAST trial used physician-assigned angina class as a quality-of-life measure, whereas we used the SF-36 health status survey to quantify overall physical and mental health status as reported by the patient.

Interest in evaluating the outcomes of diabetic patients after coronary revascularization has increased with the publication of subgroup analysis from the BARI trial and observational data demonstrating improved survival among diabetics who undergo CABG surgery compared with PCI (33,34). In the AWESOME study, survival was not significantly different for diabetics receiving CABG surgery versus PCI (35). In our study, diabetes was a predictor of worse physical health status in our overall study population, and we found a trend toward worse physical health status in diabetics assigned to CABG surgery. Thus, it is possible that the survival benefit in diabetics after CABG surgery may be partially offset by worse HRQL. Because both the BARI diabetic substudy and this study evaluated diabetics in subgroup analyses, and because there have been important advances in both CABG surgery (e.g., off-pump bypass) and PCI (e.g., drug-eluting stents), future studies simultaneously evaluating both survival and quality of life after randomization to CABG surgery versus PCI in diabetics with multivessel coronary artery disease are warranted.

A strength of this study was the focus on HRQL outcomes, which is consistent with the goal of promoting patient-centeredness to improve the quality of care in the U.S. as set forth by the Institute of Medicine (36). Also, many HRQL studies are observational, raising concerns about comparability of patients and concerns about comparison of outcomes. A major strength of this study was the randomized trial design, supporting comparability of the PCI and CABG cohorts with regard to both measured and unmeasured confounders. Additional strengths of this study included the high survey response rate and the use of a validated and reliable tool for the assessment of physical and mental health status (12,26,27). Finally, we had adequate power to detect clinically important differences between the PCI and CABG surgery groups.

Study limitations.   Potential limitations of this study should be addressed. First, this clinical trial included a select group of high-risk VA patients. Results may not be generalizable to lower risk patients or to non-VA settings. Second, there was only one assessment of HRQL six months after randomization. Longitudinal assessment would be ideal to evaluate changes over time and the trajectory of HRQL outcomes for the PCI and CABG surgery cohorts. Finally, we only had a general measure of HRQL, and it would be ideal to evaluate both general and disease-specific HRQL.

Conclusions.   We found that high-risk patients with medically refractory ischemia randomized to PCI versus CABG surgery have equivalent six-month HRQL outcomes. Therefore, HRQL concerns should not drive decision-making regarding selection of a revascularization procedure for these patients.


   Footnotes
 
Funding for this study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Cooperative Studies Program (CSP #385). Dr. Rumsfeld is supported by a Veterans Administration Health Services Research and Development Research Career Development Award (RCD 98341-1).


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial. Lancet. 1993;341:573–580[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. CABRI Trial Participants. First year results of CABRI (Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularization Investigation). Lancet. 1995;346:1179–1184[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. King SB, Lembo NJ, Weintraub WS, et al. A randomized trial comparing coronary angioplasty with coronary bypass surgery: Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial (EAST). N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1044–1050[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:217–225[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Rodriguez A, Boullon F, Perez-Balino N, et al. Argentine randomized trial of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease (ERACI): in-hospital results and 1-year follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:1060–1067[Abstract]
  6. Hamm CW, Reimers J, Ischinger T, Rupprecht HJ, Berger J, Bleifeld W. A randomized study of coronary angioplasty compared with bypass surgery in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease: German Angioplasty Bypass Surgery Investigation (GABI). N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1037–1043[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Rickards AF, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing coronary angioplasty with bypass surgery. Lancet. 1995;346:1184–1189[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Sim I, Gupta M, McDonald K, Bourassa M, Hlatky MA. A meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in multivessel coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1995;76:1025–1029[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study GroupSerruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, et al. Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1117–1124[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Strauss WE, Fortin T, Hartigan P, Folland ED, Parisi AF. A comparison of quality of life scores in patients with angina pectoris after angioplasty compared with after medical therapy: Veterans affairs study of angioplasty compared to medical therapy investigators. Circulation. 1995;92:1710–1719[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, Deyo RA, Fihn SD. Monitoring the quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1994;74:1240–1244[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Kiebzak GM, Pierson LM, Campbell M, Cook JW. Use of the SF36 general health status survey to document health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease: effect of disease and response to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Heart Lung. 2002;31:207–213[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:1262–1346[Free Full Text]
  14. Newman MF, Kirchner JL, Phillips-Bute B, et al. Longitudinal assessment of neurocognitive function after coronary artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:395–402[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Wahrborg P. Quality of life after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery: 1-year follow-up in the Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularization Investigation (CABRI) trial. Eur Heart J. 1999;20:653–658[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Hlatky MA, Rogers WJ, Johnstone I, et al. Medical care costs and quality of life after randomization to coronary angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:92–99[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Writing Group for the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. Five-year clinical and functional outcome comparing bypass surgery and angioplasty in patients with multivessel coronary disease: a multicenter randomized trial. JAMA. 1997;277:715–721[Abstract]
  18. Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Seed P, Treasure T, Hampton JR. Quality of life, employment status, and anginal symptoms after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery: 3-year follow-up in the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial. Circulation. 1996;94:135–142[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Weintraub WS, Mauldin PD, Becker E, Kosinski AS, King SB. A comparison of the costs of and quality of life after coronary angioplasty or coronary surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial (EAST). Circulation. 1995;92:2831–2840[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J, et al. A multicenter, randomized trial of percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery in high-risk unstable angina patients. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20:601–619[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: a multicenter, randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:143–149[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Seto TB, Taira DA, Berezin R, et al. Percutaneous coronary revascularization in elderly patients: impact on functional status and quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:955–958[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Duits AA, Boeke S, Taams MA, Passchier J, Erdman AM. Prediction of quality of life after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a review and evaluation of multiple, recent studies. Psychosom Med. 1997;59:257–268[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Ayanian J, Guadagnoli E, Cleary P. Physical and psychosocial func-tioning of women and men after coronary artery bypass surgery. JAMA. 1995;274:1767–1770[Abstract]
  25. Rumsfeld JS, Magid DJ, O’Brien M, et al. Changes in health-related quality of life following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:2026–2032[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.
  27. Ware J, Kosinski M. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A Manual for Users of Version 1, Second Edition. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc; 2001.
  28. Rumsfeld JS, Magid DJ, Plomondon ME, et al. Predictors of quality of life following acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88:781–784[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Mark DB, Naylor CD, Hlatky MA, et al. Use of medical resources and quality of life after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1130–1135[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Ware JE Jr, Bayliss MS, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, Tarlov AR. Differences in 4-year health outcomes for elderly and poor, chronically ill patients treated in HMO and fee-for-service systems: results from the Medical Outcomes study. JAMA. 1996;276:1039–1047[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Pretre R, Turina MI. Analysis of trials of surgery vs. angioplasty in myocardial revascularization. Semin Interv Cardiol. 1999;4:235–243[Medline]
  32. Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Clayton T, Lyman GH, Chamberlain DA. Quality of life after coronary angioplasty or continued medical treatment for angina: three-year follow-up in the RITA-2 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:907–914[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. BARI Investigators. Influence of diabetes on 5-year mortality and morbidity in a randomized trial comparing CABG and PTCA in patients with multivessel disease: the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). Circulation. 1997;96:1707–1710[Free Full Text]
  34. Niles NW, McGrath PD, Malenka D, et al. Survival of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease after surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of a large regional prospective study. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease study group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:1008–1015[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Sedlis SP, Morrison DA, Lorin JD, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass graft surgery for diabetic patients with unstable angina and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: outcome of diabetic patients in the AWESOME randomized trial and registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1555–1566[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. p. 39–60



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
L. J. Dacey, D. S. Likosky, T. J. Ryan Jr, J. F. Robb, R. D. Quinn, J. T. DeVries, M. J. Hearne, B. J. Leavitt, R. F. Dunton, R. A. Clough, et al.
Long-Term Survival After Surgery Versus Percutaneous Intervention in Octogenarians With Multivessel Coronary Disease
Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2007; 84(6): 1904 - 1911.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
D. M. Bravata, A. L. Gienger, K. M. McDonald, V. Sundaram, M. V. Perez, R. Varghese, J. R. Kapoor, R. Ardehali, D. K. Owens, and M. A. Hlatky
Systematic Review: The Comparative Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Ann Intern Med, November 20, 2007; 147(10): 703 - 716.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
R. L. Frye
Update in Cardiology
Ann Intern Med, August 7, 2007; 147(3): 180 - 186.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
C. L. Saltzman, M. B. Zimmerman, M. O'Rourke, T. D. Brown, J. A. Buckwalter, and R. Johnston
Impact of Comorbidities on the Measurement of Health in Patients with Ankle Osteoarthritis
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2006; 88(11): 2366 - 2372.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
M. J. Radford
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention "Dominates" Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for High-Risk Patients: Good News for Patients, a Challenge for Healthcare Planners
Circulation, September 19, 2006; 114(12): 1229 - 1231.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
K. T. Stroupe, D. A. Morrison, M. A. Hlatky, P. G. Barnett, L. Cao, C. Lyttle, D. M. Hynes, W. G. Henderson, and for the Investigators of Veterans Affairs Cooperat
Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Revascularization of High-Risk Patients
Circulation, September 19, 2006; 114(12): 1251 - 1257.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
M. M. Graham, C. M. Norris, P. D. Galbraith, M. L. Knudtson, W. A. Ghali, and for the APPROACH Investigators
Quality of life after coronary revascularization in the elderly
Eur. Heart J., July 2, 2006; 27(14): 1690 - 1698.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. B. Dobbs, R. Nunley, and P. L. Schoenecker
Long-Term Follow-up of Patients with Clubfeet Treated with Extensive Soft-Tissue Release
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 2006; 88(5): 986 - 996.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
J. Denollet, S. S. Pedersen, A. T.L. Ong, R. A.M. Erdman, P. W. Serruys, and R. T. van Domburg
Social inhibition modulates the effect of negative emotions on cardiac prognosis following percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stent era
Eur. Heart J., January 2, 2006; 27(2): 171 - 177.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.Home page
B. Szygula-Jurkiewicz, M. Zembala, K. Wilczek, R. Wojnicz, and L. Polonski
Health related quality of life after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. 12-month follow up
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., May 1, 2005; 27(5): 882 - 886.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
H. M. Krumholz
The year in health care delivery and outcomes research
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 1, 2004; 44(5): 1130 - 1136.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in this journal
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rumsfeld, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rumsfeld, J. S.

HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK