Efird, Jimmy T.O'Neal, Wesley T.Davies, Stephen W.Kennedy, Whitney L.Alger, Lada N.O'Neal, Jason B.Ferguson, T. BruceKypson, Alan P.2016-07-282016-07-282013-08British journal of medicine and medical research; 3:4 p. 1248-12572231-0614http://hdl.handle.net/10342/5850Background Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have reported no difference in long-term mortality between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The purpose of this pooled observational analysis was to compare recent retrospective studies examining long-term survival of patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease undergoing CABG and PCI. Methodology We searched Medline for observational studies comparing long-term (>1 year) survival between CABG and PCI for the treatment of multi-vessel coronary artery disease over the past 10 years. Results Eight studies met inclusion criteria. A total of 306,868 patients (155,502 CABG; 151,366 PCI) were identified. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 8 years. Mantel-Haenszel combined hazard ratios (HR) for mortality demonstrated a protective benefit of CABG compared with PCI (HR=0.77, 95%CI=0.75–0.79). Conclusion These findings suggest a long-term survival advantage for CABG compared with PCI in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease.CABGPCIsurvivallong-termArticlepmc3942885