|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
It remains controversial whether coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be optimized to treat coronary artery disease in patients on chronic hemodialysis (HD). Recently, further refinement of drug-eluting stents, such as the everolimus-eluting stent (EES), has led to marked development in this field. We compared long-term clinical outcomes after CABG versus PCI with EES implantation in patients on chronic HD.We compared 138 patients undergoing CABG and 187 patients treated with EES implantation. The endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as a composite outcome, including any revascularization, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or mortality. To reduce the selection bias for the two procedures, propensity score-matching was performed.During the follow-up period (43 months), 95 (29.2%) MACEs, including 43 (13.2%) revascularizations, 14 (4.3%) nonfatal myocardial infarctions, and 63 (19.4%) deaths, occurred. The freedom rate from MACE and mortality at 5 years were comparable between groups (69.7 vs. 66.7%, P=0.82 and 75.0 vs. 80.6%, P=0.10, respectively); however, those from revascularization at 5 years was higher in the CABG group than the EES group (89.4 vs. 81.0%, P=0.030). In propensity score-matched patients (n=92), the freedom rate from revascularization at 5 years was still higher in the CABG group than in the EES group (93.4 vs. 79.1%, P=0.013). Similarly, the freedom rates from MACE and mortality were comparable (70.0 vs. 66.3%, P=0.69 and 73.8 vs. 79.7%, P=0.30, respectively).Even in the second-generation drug-eluting stent era, CABG is still superior for preventing revascularization in patients on chronic HD. However, PCI with EES implantation might not have disadvantages compared with CABG in terms of MACE.