Letter

To stent or not to stent?

A sterile debate

BMJ 2007; 335 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39273.655694.BE (Published 19 July 2007)
Cite this as: BMJ 2007;335:111.1

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Stephen Westaby, professor, department of cardiac surgery,
  2. Keith Channon, professor of cardiovascular medicine, department of cardiology,
  3. Adrian Banning, consultant, department of cardiology
  1. John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU
  1. swestaby{at}AHF.org.uk

    Did the recent BMJ articles improve the evidence for the superiority of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as claimed?1 2 3 In 2006 the featured minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft (MIDCAB) operation for isolated left anterior descending disease accounted for less than 0.5% of 24 000 CABG procedures in the United Kingdom.1 2 Equally the economic arguments apply to practice and hospital costs 10 years ago,3 …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    Read related article

    See previous polls

    BMJ most popular