Meta-analysis of comparison of 5-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery in the era of drug-eluting stents

Document Type

Article

Department

Cardiology

Abstract

Patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease are increasingly being treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES), but long-term outcomes comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain limited. We performed aggregate data meta-analyses of clinical outcomes (all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, cardiac death, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events) in studies comparing 5-year outcomes of PCI with DES versus CABG in patients with ULMCA disease. A comprehensive literature search (January 1, 2003 to December 10, 2016) identified 9 studies (6,637 patients). Effect size for individual clinical outcomes was estimated using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random effects model. At 5 years, PCI with DES was associated with equivalent cardiac (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.46) and all-cause mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33), lower rates of stroke (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.84), and higher rates of repeat revascularization (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.91); compared with CABG, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events showed a trend favoring CABG but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54). In conclusion, for ULMCA disease, PCI can be considered as a comparably effective and yet less invasive alternative to CABG given the comparable long-term mortality and lower incidences of stroke

Comments

This work was published before the author joined Aga Khan University.

Publication (Name of Journal)

The American Journal of Cardiology

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS