Bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of unprotected left main disease

Percutaneous coronary invervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with coronary artery disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched, and randomized controlled trials were included. Outcomes were assessed at maximum available follow-up.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis includes 31 trials with 15,004 patients. As regards death, more patients died after PCI compared with CABG across all types of patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.3; P = .05) as well as in patients with multivessel disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) or diabetes (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1; P < .01). Myocardial infarction occurred as frequently after PCI (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = .28). Repeat revascularization was more common after PCI (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.5-5.8; P < .01), with a progressive decline in ORs from the pre-stent era (OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 5.1-9.7; P < .01), to the bare metal stent era (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.6-5.5; P < .01), and to the drug-eluting stent era (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.4; P < .01). Stroke was more common after CABG (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PCI, CABG had a lower risk of death in multivessel disease or diabetes patients eligible for either intervention, a lower risk of repeat revascularization, but a higher risk of stroke.

Drug-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of four randomized trials and seventeen observational studies

Background

The clinical application of drug-eluting stents (DES) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) is still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy between DES and CABG for ULMCAD.

Methods

Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched.

Results

Twenty-one studies with 8,413 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The risk was lower in DES than in CABG groups at the early outcomes of death (risk ratio (RR): 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–0.78), cerebrovascular events (RR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.08–0.45) and composite endpoint (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40–0.70); death after 2 years (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.66–0.99), 4 years (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53–0.90), 5 years (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.61–0.95) and their total effect (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.71–0.87); composite endpoint 1 year (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58–0.83), 4 years (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53–0.88), 5 years (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.59–0.92) and their total effect (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.71–0.85). There were no significant differences in the risk for the early outcomes of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.68–1.38), death 1 year (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.57–1.15) and 3 years (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69–1.04), composite endpoint of 2 years (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72–1.09) and 3 years (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73–1.04). Nonetheless, there was a lower risk for revascularization associated with CABG from 1 to 5 years and their total effect (RR: 3.77, 95% CI: 3.35–4.26). There was no difference in death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events or revascularization at 1 year between RCT and observational groups.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis indicates that DES has higher safety but higher revascularization than CABG in patients with ULMCAD in the 5 years after intervention.