Long-term outcomes of bypass grafting versus drug-eluting stenting for left main coronary artery disease: Results from the IRIS-MAIN registry

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous versus surgical revascularization in patients with diabetes and left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) relative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with diabetes and unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) are not well established.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a meta-analysis evaluating the long-term outcomes after PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES), as compared with CABG, in patients with diabetes and unprotected LMCAD.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported outcomes after PCI with DES versus CABG in unprotected LMCAD among patients with diabetes. To evaluate the long-term effects of these interventions, we restricted this analysis to studies with a minimum follow-up period of 3 years. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed according to Cochrane recommendations.

RESULTS

Four RCTs with a total of 1080 patients were included, 553 (51.2%) of whom underwent PCI. There was no difference for individual outcomes of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.86-1.71; p = .27; I²  = 28%), cardiovascular death (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 0.76-2.18; p = .34; I²  = 0%), or myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.61-1.45; p = .79; I²  = 0%). However, the risk of stroke was reduced with PCI relative to CABG (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.18-0.94; p = .04; I²  = 0%), whereas the risk of any repeat revascularization was higher in the PCI group (RR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.44-2.75; p < .001; I²  = 0%). The risk of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization was higher after PCI compared with CABG (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.09-1.56; p = .004; I²  = 0%).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis with more than 1000 patients with diabetes and unprotected LMCAD followed for a minimum of 3 years, the incidence of repeat revascularization was higher among those treated with PCI, whereas the risk of stroke was higher in patients treated with CABG.

Single versus Double Stenting in NSTEMI Patients with Complex Left Main Bifurcation Disease

Background: Among patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) the presence of a bifurcation left main (LM) disease represents a particular subset graved by both clinical and technical challenges. We sought to assess the long-term outcomes of patients with NSTEMI treated either by single or double stent strategy, having an LM bifurcation culprit lesion. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the procedural and medical data of consecutive patients referred to our center for NSTEMI due to complex LM bifurcation disease as the culprit lesion, treated using either single or dual stenting (provisional stenting, T or T-and-Protrusion (TAP), Culotte, and Nano-inverted-T (NIT)) techniques between January 2008 and May 2018. Target lesion failure (TLF) was defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: Four hundred and forty-five patients (54.1% males, mean age 70.3 ± 12.8 years, mean Syntax score 31.6 ± 6.3) were evaluated. Of these, 155 patients (34.8%) were treated using a single stent while the remaining were treated with a double stent strategy. After a mean follow-up of 37.1 months (IQR 22.1-39.3), TLF rate was 8.7% (n = 39): 5/155 (3.2%) in the crossover group; 10/53 (18.8%) in T/TAP group, 14/89 (15.7%) in the culotte group, and 10/148 (6.7%) in the NIT group of patients. Cardiovascular mortality rate was 2.9% (n = 13) while stent thrombosis was 0.89% (n = 4). On multivariate analysis dyslipidemia, Syntax score > 25, triple vessel disease, additional LM ostial, or LM body lesions and the use of Rotablator, were independent predictors of TLF. Conclusions: Either a single or double stent strategy resulted in low rates of TLF, cardiovascular death, and stent thrombosis in the long-term period in NSTEMI LM patients with contraindications or refusal of surgery. A single stent strategy appeared to have a slightly better outcome compared to a 2-stent strategy.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft in patients with STEMI and unprotected left main stem disease: A systematic review & meta-analysis

•

The advent of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has caused much debate about the optimal revascularization method for LMCAD.

•

Several studies have previously been conducted comparing PCI versus CABG for LMCAD, however most of these have only taken into account randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while ignoring observational studies.

•

This study takes data from both RCTs and observational studies to obtain a better comparison of the two revascularization techniques.

•

It is the first meta-analysis to report data for various adverse outcomes after 10 years of follow-up.

Introduction

Owing to its large area of supply, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) has the highest mortality rate among coronary artery lesions, resulting in debate about its optimal revascularization technique. This meta-analysis compares percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of LMCAD.

Method

MEDLINE, TRIP, and Cochrane Central databases were queried from their inception until 25 April 2021, to determine MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events), all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke rates post-revascularization for different follow-ups. 7 RCTs and 50 observational studies having 56,701 patients were included. A random-effects model was used with effect sizes calculated as odds ratios (odds ratio, OR).

Results

In the short term (1 year), PCI had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.58, 95% CI 2.47–5.20; p < 0.00001), but lower strokes (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.81; p = 0.002). In the intermediate term (2–5 years), PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.72–4.44; p < 0.00001) and MI (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.17–1.64; p = 0.0002), but significantly lower strokes (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.42–0.70; p < 0.0001). PCI also had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.89–3.52; p < 0.00001) in the long term (≥5 years), while in the very long term (≥10 years), PCI had significantly lower all-cause mortalities (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.96; p = 0.02).

Conclusion

PCI was safer than CABG for patients with stroke for most follow-ups, while CABG was associated with lower repeat revascularizations. However, further research is required to determine PCI’s safety over CABG for reducing post-surgery MI.

The effect of diabetes on surgical versus percutaneous left main revascularization outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The optimal method of coronary revascularization for diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is controversial in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DES-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for LMCAD in DM patients and tested for effect measure modification (EMM) by diabetes for adverse events. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing CABG to DES-based PCI including DM patients with LMCAD published up to March 1, 2021. We completed separate random-effects meta-analyses for four RCTs (4356 patients, mean follow-up of 4.9 years) and six observational studies (9360 patients, mean follow-up of 5.2 years).

Results

In RCTs among DM patients, DES-based PCI, compared to CABG, was associated with a 30% increased relative risk (RR) (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09–1.56, I² = 0%), while among non-DM patients, there was a 25% increased relative risk (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07–1.44, I² = 0%) for the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned revascularization (MACCE). There was no evidence of EMM (p-value for interaction = 0.70). The mean weighted SYNTAX score was 25.7. In observational studies, there was no difference between DES-based PCI and CABG for all-cause mortality in patients with DM (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.91–1.40, I² = 0%).

Conclusions

CABG was superior to PCI for LMCAD in RCTs in DM patients for MACCE. Heart teams may consider DM as one of the many components in the clinical decision-making process, but may not want to consider DM as a primary deciding factor between DES-based PCI and CABG for LMCAD with low to intermediate anatomical complexity in the other coronary arteries.

Study registration

CRD42021246931 (PROSPERO).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01795-w.

PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: Does Disease Location Matter?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review attempts to specifically assess impact of disease location in left main artery on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The management of left main disease, once thought to be the sole province of cardiothoracic surgeon, has recently undergone a reappraisal by the cardiovascular medicine community. For many years, societal guideline recommendations advised bypass surgery as the "de rigeur" method of revascularization for unprotected left main disease. However, recent studies suggest that coronary intervention, especially with advances in drug-eluting stent technology, has mounted a serious challenge to surgical bypass in treatment of this disease. Although overall mortality rates are comparable for percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass surgery, left main disease location does influence long-term outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention more than bypass surgery. A patient- and lesion-centered approach to treatment of this disease may provide optimal outcomes.

Meta-Analysis Comparing the Risk of Myocardial Infarction Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

There is insufficient data regarding the comparative efficacy of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) regarding myocardial infarction (MI). Our systematic review included randomized controlled trials that compared CABG versus PCI with stents in patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD). Included trials should have had reported event number of MI and a clinical follow-up of one or more years. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary end point was MI at the longest available follow-up in the intention-to-treat population. Fifteen trials with a total of 13,592 patients treated with either CABG (n = 6,596) or PCI (n = 6,996) were included. After a weighted follow-up of 4.5 years, patients treated with CABG had a significantly lower risk of MI than those treated with PCI (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 0.96, p = 0.024). The lower risk of MI with CABG as compared with PCI was more evident during a longer duration of follow-up (≥3 years, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, p = 0.008; ≥5 years, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86, p = 0.003) and in the diabetic population (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.70, p <0.001). The magnitude of risk reduction was similar across patients with multivessel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99) and left main CAD (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.15). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis of studies involving patients with multivessel or left main CAD suggests a significant benefit of CABG over PCI concerning the risk of future MI.

Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Diabetic Patients With Multivessel and/or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis

With the development of stent design and surgical techniques, the relative benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with diabetes and complex coronary artery disease are highly debated. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and CABG in these cohorts. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to January 4, 2018, was performed. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), subgroup analysis from RCTs, or adjusted observational studies were eligible. Five RCTs and 13 adjusted observational studies involving 17 532 patients were included. Overall, PCI with DES was significantly associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.29), myocardial infarction (MI; HR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.43-2.00), and repeat revascularization (HR: 3.77, 95% CI: 2.76-5.16) compared with CABG. Nevertheless, the risk of stroke was significantly lower in the DES group (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.83). The incidence of the composite end point of death, MI, or stroke was comparable between the 2 groups (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.84-1.17). Despite the higher risk of stroke, CABG was better than PCI with DES for diabetic patients with multivessel and/or left main coronary artery disease.