Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 541

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Drug-Eluting Stents vs. Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting in Multivessel Coronary Disease

Open access
Hannan, Edward L., Wu, Chuntao, Walford, Gary, Culliford, Alfred T., Gold, Jeffrey P., Smith, Craig R., Higgins, Robert S.D., Carlson, Russell E., Jones, Robert H.·2008·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have compared the outcomes of two competing interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease: coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) and coronary stenting. However, little information has become available since the introduction of drug-eluting stents. METHODS: We identified patients with multivessel disease who received drug-eluting stents or underwent CABG in New York State between October 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004, and we compared adverse outcomes (death, death or myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) through December 31, 2005, after adjustment for differences in baseline risk factors among the patients. RESULTS: In comparison with treatment with a drug-eluting stent, CABG was associated with lower 18-month rates of death and of death or myocardial infarction both for patients with three-vessel disease and for patients with two-vessel disease. Among patients with three-vessel disease who underwent CABG, as compared with those who received a stent, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.97) and the adjusted survival rate was 94.0% versus 92.7% (P=0.03); the adjusted hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89) and the adjusted rate of survival free from myocardial infarction was 92.1% versus 89.7% (P<0.001). Among patients with two-vessel disease who underwent CABG, as compared with those who received a stent, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89) and the adjusted survival rate was 96.0% versus 94.6% (P=0.003); the adjusted hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.87) and the adjusted rate of survival free from myocardial infarction was 94.5% versus 92.5% (P<0.001). Patients undergoing CABG also had lower rates of repeat revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with multivessel disease, CABG continues to be associated with lower mortality rates than does treatment with drug-eluting stents and is also associated with lower rates of death or myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa071804

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 541

Metadata

Authors
Hannan, E. L., Wu, C., Walford, G., Culliford, A. T., Gold, J. P., Smith, C. R., Higgins, R. S. D., Carlson, R. E., & Jones, R. H.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2008-01-24
Volume
358
Issue
4
Pages
331-341
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2103011662
Cited by
541
References
0
FWCI
66.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Drug-Eluting Stents vs. Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting in Multivessel Coronary Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa071804
The paper
Hannan, E. L., Wu, C., Walford, G., Culliford, A. T., Gold, J. P., Smith, C. R., Higgins, R. S. D., Carlson, R. E., & Jones, R. H. (2008). Drug-Eluting Stents vs. Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting in Multivessel Coronary Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa071804

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.