Percutaneous coronary angioplasty
Searched over 200M research papers
Summary
10 papers analyzed
Some studies suggest percutaneous coronary angioplasty effectively reduces coronary stenosis, improves cardiac function, and is less expensive, while other studies indicate coronary artery bypass grafting is more effective in preventing angina, reinterventions, and has better outcomes for left main coronary artery disease.
Not a yes or no question
To use the Consensus Meter, try asking a simple yes or no question
Research summarized with Copilot
Beta20 papers analyzed
Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty: Efficacy, Comparisons, and Cost-Effectiveness
Introduction to Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty
Percutaneous coronary angioplasty (PCA), also known as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), is a minimally invasive procedure used to open narrowed or blocked coronary arteries. This technique involves the insertion of a catheter with a balloon at its tip, which is inflated to widen the artery and improve blood flow. PCA is a common treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD) and has been compared extensively with other treatment modalities such as medical therapy and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty
Reduction in Angina and Improvement in Cardiac Function
Studies have shown that PCA can significantly reduce the severity of angina and improve cardiac function in patients with coronary artery disease. For instance, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials indicated that PCA led to a greater reduction in angina compared to medical treatment, although it was associated with a higher rate of subsequent coronary artery bypass grafting. Additionally, PCA has been effective in reducing stenosis and improving coronary pressure gradients, leading to improved cardiac function in a majority of patients.
Long-term Outcomes and Survival Rates
The long-term outcomes of PCA have been a subject of extensive research. In patients with single-vessel disease, PCA has shown to improve event-free survival rates and reduce the need for nitrates over a long-term follow-up period. However, the survival advantage of PCA over other treatments such as CABG is less clear. A meta-analysis found that while CABG provided a survival advantage at five years for patients with multivessel disease, PCA was associated with more repeat revascularizations.
Comparison with Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
Major Adverse Cardiac or Cerebrovascular Events (MACCE)
Comparative studies between PCA and CABG have yielded mixed results. The NOBLE trial, for example, found that CABG was superior to PCA in terms of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) over a five-year follow-up period. Similarly, another study reported that patients undergoing CABG were more frequently free from angina and reinterventions compared to those treated with PCA.
Cost-Effectiveness
PCA is generally considered to be less expensive than CABG, particularly in patients with single-vessel disease. A study comparing the costs associated with PCA and CABG found that the mean aggregate one-year monetary outlay was 15% lower in the PCA group. However, the cost-effectiveness of PCA can be influenced by the rate of restenosis, which necessitates additional treatments and increases overall costs.
Special Considerations
PCA in Patients with Prior CABG
PCA can also be an effective alternative to reoperation in patients with prior CABG who experience disabling angina. Studies have shown that PCA can significantly reduce stenosis and improve symptomatic status in these patients, making it a viable option for those who are not suitable candidates for repeat surgery.
Ambulatory PCA in Low-Income Countries
Recent advancements have made it possible to perform PCA as an outpatient procedure, which can be particularly beneficial in low-income countries. A study conducted in the Dominican Republic demonstrated the short-term safety of ambulatory PCA, with a high satisfaction rate and minimal complications, suggesting that this approach could help reduce healthcare costs and improve access to care.
Conclusion
Percutaneous coronary angioplasty is a valuable treatment option for coronary artery disease, offering significant benefits in terms of angina reduction and cardiac function improvement. While it is generally less expensive than CABG, the long-term outcomes and survival benefits may vary depending on the patient population and specific clinical scenarios. Ongoing research and advancements in PCA techniques continue to enhance its efficacy and cost-effectiveness, making it a critical component of modern cardiovascular care.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic
