In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

We use cookies to optimise the design of this website and make continuous improvement. By continuing your visit, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn more

The SYNergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) Study.

Hot Line II


Mohr, Friedrich (Germany): slides available
Serruys, Patrick (Netherlands): slides available


The Cardiologist's point of view - slides available |
Hamm, Christian (Germany)

The surgeon's point of view - slides available |
Jones, Robert (USA)


Read the "surgeon's point of view" report below :

The strengths of the SYNTAX Study are its inclusive design which relies more on clinical judgement then lists of inclusion /exclusion criteria for patient eligibility, and the high quality of care the patients received after randomization to either PCI or CABG for left main or 3 vessel CAD management.

Unfortunately the study was underpowered and did not provide a definitive result for the primary outcome, which was non inferiority of PCI. A higher rate of repeat revascularization for PCI than CABG was the reason for the negative result. This result leaves unresolved the appropriateness of use of PCI in patients with LM disease who might be willing to accept the risk of a second PCI to avoid the more invasive CABG. Longer follow up is needed to define the true difference between these two revascularization strategies.




Hot Line II

Notes to editor

This congress report accompanies a presentation given at the ESC Congress 2008. Written by the author himself/herself, this report does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Society of Cardiology.

The content of this article reflects the personal opinion of the author/s and is not necessarily the official position of the European Society of Cardiology.