{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015141087405368204, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.520179372197309, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Medical Therapy for Multivessel Disease with and without Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Multiple randomized trials support the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and relatively normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, there has been a paucity of trials in the recent literature that have compared the outcomes of patients with multivessel CAD and low EF who undergo PCI or CABG. This review examines some of the clinical trials and series in this subgroup of patients and also compares the outcome of patients undergoing either procedure in the absence and presence of LV dysfunction. These trials and series support the notion that PCI can be successfully performed in patients with low EF with relatively low mortality, but that CABG is associated with greater freedom from repeat revascularization and from angina or congestive heart failure symptoms. In addition, most of the data published thus far indicate a long-term survival advantage among patients with ventricular dysfunction who have undergone CABG. Further studies, including randomized trials incorporating the evolving techniques of CABG and the recent advances in PCI, will be needed to assess the proper role and outcome of these two interventions.