Expansion or contraction of stenting in coronary artery disease?

In the past four decades, more than 20 trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have tested whether iterative technical advances in PCI have made it as effective as CABG in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The clinical relevance of most of these trials to real-world practice has, however, been plagued by three issues.[1] First, by largely enrolling highly selected patients with low-severity coronary artery disease, the trials were inherently biased towards more favourable outcomes for PCI. 5 SJ Head, M Milojevic, J Daemen, Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease a pooled analysis of individual patient data. [Extracted from the article]