Five-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with left main coronary artery disease: An updated meta-analysis of randomized trials and adjusted observational studies

Reassessing Revascularization Strategies in Coronary Artery Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still controversial in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Here, we aimed to evaluate the long-term follow-up events of PCI and CABG in these populations. Relevant randomized controlled trials were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. The pooled results were represented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with STATA software. A total of six trials with 1,766 patients who received CABG and 2,262 patients who received PCI were included in our study. Patients in the CABG group were significantly associated with a lower all-cause mortality compared with those in the PCI group (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56–0.98, P = 0.037). Cardiac mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization were also significantly lower in the CABG group (RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.40–1.53, P = 0.479; RR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.32–1.56, P = 0.387; and RR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.28–0.46, P < 0.0001; respectively). However, compared with the PCI group, the cerebral vascular accident was higher in the CABG group (RR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.43–3.33, P < 0.0001). There was no publication bias in our study. CABG revascularization was associated with significantly lower long-term adverse clinical outcomes, except cerebral vascular accident, compared with PCI in patients with CAD and T2DM.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020216014.

Complete Revascularization in Acute and Chronic Coronary Syndrome

In patients with multivessel disease, complete revascularization (CR) is the most biologically plausible approach irrespective of definition or type or clinical setting (acute or chronic coronary syndrome [ACS or CCS]). It aims at minimizing residual ischemia, relieving symptoms and reducing the risk of future cardiovascular events. Large evidence supports CR benefits in ACS, predominantly ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, except cardiogenic shock, although optimal assessment and timing remain debated. In patients with CCS, when revascularization is indicated, a functional CR should be attempted. Therefore, heart-team is crucial in selecting the ideal strategy for each patient to optimize decision-making.

Left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The optimal coronary revascularization strategy for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent (DES) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with ULMCA disease with or without LVSD.

METHODS

A total of 984 patients with ULMCA disease who received a DES (n = 511) or underwent CABG (n = 473) were included in this study. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical parameters and outcomes of ULMCA disease patients with different left ventricular ejection fraction levels.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac and cerebral events, all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between the CABG and DES groups with or without LVSD. The rate of target vessel revascularization was significantly higher with DES compared with CABG in patients without LVSD; however, the difference was not significant between the mild LVSD and severe LVSD groups.

CONCLUSION

For patients with ULMCA disease and LVSD, there was no significant difference between DES and CABG in terms of efficacy and safety. Treatment with DES was an acceptable alternative to CABG.

Nonemergent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on an Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Supported with Impella® Heart Pump in Patients Ineligible for Surgical Revascularization

Objectives

We sought to assess if ineligibility to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) constitutes a risk factor in patients who underwent a nonemergent unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with prophylactic Impella® heart pump support.

Background

ULMCA PCI in patients not deemed eligible for CABG is associated with significantly worse outcomes compared to ULMCA PCI in eligible patients.

Methods

Patients from the cVAD Registry and the PROTECT II trial who underwent a nonemergent ULMCA PCI were identified. We compared in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates as well as 30-day survival and MACCE rates between CABG ineligible and CABG eligible patients.

Results

A total of 331 patients were included (293 Impella 2.5®, 38 Impella CP®); 227 were ineligible for CABG and 104 were eligible. Baseline characteristics were remarkable for a trend toward higher rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the ineligible patients. In-hospital mortality (3.52% vs. 5.77%; p=0.383) and MACCE (6.61% vs. 7.69%; p=0.816) rates as well as 30-day survival (92.0% vs. 93.4%; Log-Rank p-value =0.781) and MACCE (88.1% vs. 90.1%; Log-Rank p-value=0.648) rates were not different between the two groups.

Conclusions

The results of our study suggest that prophylactic Impella support appears to mitigate the risks inherent to surgical ineligibility in patients undergoing a nonemergent ULMCA PCI. Our results require further investigation.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

In patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the standard therapy for several decades. However, some studies suggest that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative.

Objective

To compare the long-term safety of PCI with drug-eluting stent vs CABG in patients with LMCA stenosis.

Data Sources

PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and ScienceDirect databases were searched from December 18, 2001, to February 1, 2017. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trial, patients with LMCA stenosis, PCI vs CABG, exclusive use of drug-eluting stents, and clinical follow-up of 3 or more years.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Trial-level hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled by fixed-effect and random-effects models with inverse variance weighting. Time-to-event individual patient data for the primary end point were reconstructed. Sensitivity analyses according to drug-eluting stent generation and coronary artery disease complexity were performed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at long-term follow-up. Secondary end points included repeat revascularization and a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at long-term follow-up.

Results

A total of 4 randomized clinical trials were pooled; 4394 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 3371 (76.7%) were men; pooled mean age was 65.4 years. According to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, evidence quality with respect to the primary composite end point was high. Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG were associated with a comparable risk of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke both by fixed-effect (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.24; P = .48) and random-effects (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.32; P = .60) analysis. Sensitivity analyses according to low to intermediate Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (random-effects: HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.74-1.41; P = .89) and drug-eluting stent generation (first generation: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.20; P = .49; second generation: HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.73; P = .36) were consistent. Kaplan-Meier curve reconstruction did not show significant variations over time between the techniques, with a 5-year incidence of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke of 18.3% (319 events) in patients treated with PCI and 16.9% (292 events) in patients treated with CABG. However, repeat revascularization after PCI was increased (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.42-2.05; P < .001). Other individual secondary end points did not differ significantly between groups. Finally, pooled estimates of trials with LMCA stenosis tended overall to differ significantly from those of trials with multivessel coronary artery disease without left main LMCA stenosis.

Conclusions and Relevance

Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG show comparable safety in patients with LMCA stenosis and low to intermediate-complexity coronary artery disease. However, repeat revascularization is more common after PCI.

Long term outcomes of drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

Background

It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent (DES) is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease at long-term follow up (≥ 3 years).

Methods

Eligible studies were selected by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2016. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke during the longest follow-up. Death, cardiac death, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization were the secondary outcomes.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials and twelve adjusted observational studies involving 14,130 patients were included. DES was comparable to CABG regarding the occurrence of the primary endpoint (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86–1.03). Besides, DES was significantly associated with higher incidence of MI (HR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.09–2.22) and repeat revascularization (HR = 3.09, 95% CI: 2.33–4.10) compared with CABG, while no difference was found between the two strategies regard as the rate of death, cardiac death and stroke. Furthermore, DES can reduce the risk of the composite endpoint of death, MI or stroke (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67–0.95) for ULMCA lesions with SYNTAX score ≤ 32.

Conclusions

Although with higher risk of repeat revascularization, PCI with DES appears to be as safe as CABG for ULMCA disease at long-term follow up. In addition, treatment with DES could be an alternative interventional strategy to CABG for ULMCA lesions with low to intermediate anatomic complexity.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting: A meta-analysis of patients with left main coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), in comparison to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) remains controversial.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomised studies comparing patients with LMCAD treated with PCI with DES versus those treated with CABG, with respect to clinical outcomes at 1, 3 and 5years. A secondary meta-analysis was performed according to low (<32), or high (≥33) SYNTAX score.

RESULTS

Five studies comprising 4595 patients were included. There was no significant difference in all-cause death at all time points or when stratified with respect to SYNTAX score. The need for repeat revascularization was significantly higher with PCI at all time-points, and regardless of SYNTAX score. There was significant association between need for repeat revascularization with PCI and diabetics (p=0.04). At 5years, non-fatal MI was higher with PCI owing to increased non-procedural events (OR 3.00; CI 1.45-6.21; p=0.003). CABG showed higher rate of stroke at 1year (OR 0.21; CI 0.07-0.63; p=0.005). There was no difference in non-fatal MI or stroke at other time points, nor according to SYNTAX score.

CONCLUSIONS

PCI with DES or CABG are equivalent strategies for LMCAD up to 5years with respect to death, regardless of SYNTAX score. PCI increases the rate of non-procedural MI at 5years. CABG avoids the need for repeat revascularization, especially in diabetics, but this benefit is offset by higher rate of stroke in the first year of follow up.

All-cause mortality and major cardiovascular outcomes comparing percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: a meta-analysis of short-term and long-term randomised trials

Objective

We compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

RCTs of PCI versus CABG in patients with LMCA stenosis were identified from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and search of bibliographies to November 2016. Study-specific HRs with 95% CIs were aggregated for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and other cardiovascular events at time points of 30 days, 1 year and 3 years and beyond.

Results

Six RCTs comprising 4700 patients were included. There were no significant differences in risk of all-cause mortality in pooled analysis of relevant trials at 30 days (0.61, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.36), 1 year (0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.04), and 3 years and beyond (1.04, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.33), comparing PCI with CABG. There was no significant difference in the risk of MACCE at 30 days (0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.03) and 1 year (1.16, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.44); however, PCI was associated with a higher risk of MACCE compared with CABG during longer-term follow-up (1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44). Composite outcome of death, stroke or myocardial infarction was lower with PCI at 30 days (0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.92). Repeat revascularisation was increased at 1 year and at 3 years and beyond for PCI.

Conclusions

All-cause mortality rates are not significantly different between PCI and CABG at short-term and long-term follow-up. However, PCI is associated with a reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular outcomes at short-term follow-up in patients with LMCA stenosis; but at long term, MACCE rate is increased for PCI.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines suggest that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should be the preferred revascularization method for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. In light of evidence from recent randomized trials, we assessed whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents is as safe and effective as CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Digital databases and manual searches were performed for randomized trials comparing PCI and CABG for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Among 3887 potentially relevant studies, 5 met inclusion criteria. The primary safety end point was defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included a clinical effectiveness composite, which was defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Summary estimates were obtained using random-effects modeling. In total, 4594 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the primary safety end point between the revascularization strategies (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.17; P=0.73). However, when compared with CABG, PCI was less effective (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58; P<0.001) because of significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.53-2.23; P<0.001). The incidence of all-cause death (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78-1.35; P=0.61), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.88-2.45; P=0.08), and stroke (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.39-1.97; P=0.53) did not differ between PCI and CABG.

CONCLUSIONS

PCI using drug-eluting stents and CABG are equally safe methods of revascularization for patients at low surgical risk with significant unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. However, CABG is associated with significantly lower rates of repeat revascularization.

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts for Left Main Coronary Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Revascularisation of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease can be potentially managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Recent randomised controlled trial (RCT) data have added to the literature on this subject and this meta-analysis aims to assess the state of the data to assist in guiding patient treatment decisions.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, OVID, and PubMed Medline was performed. Randomised controlled trials of patients with LMCA disease undergoing PCI with drug eluting stents or CABG were included. Clinical outcomes and adverse events were assessed and analysed.

RESULTS

Four suitable RCTs of adequate quality and follow-up were identified. The incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 3 to 5 years of follow-up was significantly increased with PCI compared to CABG (23.3% vs 18.2%, OR 1.37; 95% CI: 1.18-1.58; p=<0.0001; I²=0%) and was largely driven by more repeat revascularisation procedures among patients treated with PCI. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke (either individually or when these outcomes were combined as a composite endpoint).

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary artery bypass grafting and PCI both represent reasonable treatment modalities for LMCA disease in appropriately selected patients. However, where CABG is feasible it offers superior long-term freedom from repeat revascularisation. Longer-term follow-up is required to further clarify the durability of mortality outcomes, especially in patients treated with PCI.

Computing Methods for Composite Clinical Endpoints in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Post Hoc Analysis of the DELTA Registry

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to investigate the impact of different computing methods for composite endpoints other than time-to-event (TTE) statistics in a large, multicenter registry of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease.

BACKGROUND

TTE statistics for composite outcome measures used in ULMCA studies consider only the first event, and all the contributory outcomes are handled as if of equal importance.

METHODS

The TTE, Andersen-Gill, win ratio (WR), competing risk, and weighted composite endpoint (WCE) computing methods were applied to ULMCA patients revascularized by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at 14 international centers.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 1,295 days (interquartile range: 928 to 1,713 days), all analyses showed no difference in combinations of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident between PCI and CABG. When target vessel revascularization was incorporated in the composite endpoint, the TTE (p = 0.03), Andersen-Gill (p = 0.04), WR (p = 0.025), and competing risk (p < 0.001) computing methods showed CABG to be significantly superior to PCI in the analysis of 1,204 propensity-matched patients, whereas incorporating the clinical relevance of the component endpoints using WCE resulted in marked attenuation of the treatment effect of CABG, with loss of significance for the difference between revascularization strategies (p = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large study of ULMCA revascularization, incorporating the clinical relevance of the individual outcomes resulted in sensibly different findings as compared with the conventional TTE approach. In particular, using the WCE computing method, PCI and CABG were no longer significantly different with respect to the composite of death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, or target vessel revascularization at a median of 3 years.

Long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus stent-PCI for unprotected left main disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has traditionally represented the standard of care for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. However, percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation (PCI) has more recently emerged as a valuable alternative. The long-time awaited results of the largest randomized trials on the long-term impact of PCI versus CABG in LMCA disease, the newly published NOBLE and EXCEL studies, revealed contrasting results. Thus, aim of the present meta-analysis was to review the most robust evidence from randomized comparisons of CABG versus PCI for revascularization of LMCA.

METHODS

Randomized studies comparing long-term clinical outcomes of CABG or Stent-PCI for the treatment of LMCA disease were searched for in PubMed, the Chochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 5 randomized studies were selected, including 4499 patients.

RESULTS

No significant difference between CABG and PCI was found in the primary analysis on the composite endpoint of death, stroke and myocardial infarction (OR = 1·06 95% CI 0·80-1·40; p = 0·70). Similarly, no differences were observed between CABG and PCI for all-cause death (OR = 1·03 95% CI 0·81-1·32; p = 0·81). Although not statistically significant, a lower rate of stroke was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 0·86; p = 0·67), while a lower rate of myocardial infarction was found in the CABG arm (OR = 1·43; p = 0·17). On the contrary, a significantly higher rate of repeat revascularization was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 1·76 95% CI 1·45-2·13; p < 0·001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis, the most comprehensive and updated to date, including 5 randomized studies and 4499 patients, demonstrates no difference between Stent-PCI and CABG for the treatment of LMCA disease in the composite endpoint of death, stroke and myocardial infarction. Hence, a large part of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease can be managed equally well by means of both these revascularization strategies.

Percutaneous intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization technique in patients with left main coronary artery disease (CAD) remains controversial. We aimed to compare the long-term performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in treatment of left main CAD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched until November 16, 2016.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and 22 matched observational studies including 22,487 patients and 90,167 patient-years of follow-up were included. PCI was associated with an overall higher risk for the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio (HR), 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.77), mainly driven by higher rates of myocardial infarction (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.22-2.34) and revascularization (HR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.86-4.22). The overall risks for all-cause death (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20), cardiac death (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.69-1.59), stroke (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.33-1.24), and the composite safety endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.16) were similar between PCI and CABG. Stratified analysis based on stent types showed that the increased risk for myocardial infarction associated with PCI was only evident in patients with bare-metal stents or early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), but not newer-generation DES. Stratified analyses based on study designs showed largely similar findings with the overall analyses, except for a significantly higher incidence of myocardial infarction in adjusted studies (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.45) but a trend toward higher incidence in randomized trials (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.85-2.27) associated with PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CABG, PCI with newer-generation DES might be a safe alternative revascularization strategy for treatment of left main CAD, but is associated with more repeat revascularization.

Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Recent trials comparing PCI with CABG for unprotected left main disease yielded discrepant evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To perform an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

METHODS

Randomized trials comparing PCI versus CABG for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease were included. Summary estimates risk ratios (RRs) were performed with a DerSimonian and Laird model at short-term, intermediate and long-term follow-up periods (i.e., 30-days, 1-year, and >1-year). Outcomes evaluated were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization and stent thrombosis or symptomatic graft occlusion.

RESULTS

Six trials with 4,700 patients and a mean SYNTAX score of 23 were included. At short-term follow-up, the risk of MACCE was lower with PCI (RR 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.76) driven by the lower risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99), and stroke (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16-0.90). The risk of MACCE was similar at the intermediate follow-up (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97-1.51). At long-term follow-up, PCI was associated with a higher risk of MACCE (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.41), due to a higher risk of revascularization (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.34-1.94), while the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with unprotected left main coronary disease and low to intermediate SYNTAX score, PCI might be an acceptable alternative to CABG. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials

Background

Data regarding the long-term clinical outcomes in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (ITDM) revascularized by either coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are still controversial. We sought to compare the long-term (≥1 year) adverse clinical outcomes in patients with ITDM who underwent revascularization by either CABG or PCI.

Methods

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing the long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ITDM and non-ITDM revascularized by either CABG or PCI were searched from electronic databases. Data for patients with ITDM were carefully retrieved. Odd Ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was used to express the pooled effect on discontinuous variables and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3.

Results

Six RCTs involving 10 studies, with a total of 1297 patients with ITDM were analyzed (639 patients from the CABG group and 658 patients from the PCI group). CABG was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate compared to PCI with OR: 0.59, 95 % CI 0.42–0.85; P = 0.004. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events as well as repeated revascularization were also significantly lower in the CABG group with OR: 0.51, 95 % CI 0.27–0.99; P = 0.03 and OR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.24–0.49; P < 0.00001 respectively. However, compared to PCI, the rate of stroke was higher in the CABG group with OR: 1.41, 95 % CI 0.64–3.09; P = 0.40, but this result was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

CABG was associated with significantly lower long-term adverse clinical outcomes compared to PCI in patients with ITDM. However, due to an insignificantly higher rate of stroke in the CABG group, further researches with a larger number of randomized patients are required to completely solve this issue.