Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recently, both US and European guidelines have predominantly recommended coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the preferred revascularisation method. However, emerging data have raised the possibility of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) being a viable and effective alternative. This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the latest insights from major clinical trials to ascertain whether PCI could be as effective as CABG in treating left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. To achieve this, a comprehensive systematic search was conducted across databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov. The search spanned from the inception of these databases to August 20, 2022, and exclusively focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Employing the random effects model, selected studies underwent rigorous analysis. The study outcomes encompassed a spectrum of factors such as all-cause mortality, major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and revascularisation procedures. The observation periods of interest included the 30-day mark, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. The analysis integrated six RCTs, revealing noteworthy patterns. In terms of all-cause mortality, PCI demonstrated non-inferiority to CABG across all observed time frames: 30 days (OR 0.6), 1 year (OR 0.77), 5 years (OR 1.41), and 10 years (OR 1.08). Analysis of MACCE outcomes favored PCI at 30 days and CABG at 5 years. The utilisation of the original five-year EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularisation) trial definition for MI highlighted higher MI rates for PCI compared to CABG (OR 1.66, P < 0.05). Intriguingly, when the subsequently released EXCEL data, aligned with the third universal MI definition, was incorporated, the five-year data consistently leaned towards CABG. Specifically, the PCI group exhibited 7.5% MI rates in contrast to the 3.6% in the CABG cohort (OR 2.19, P < 0.001). Concerning stroke, PCI proved advantageous at 30 days and 1 year while exhibiting no significant disparity at 5 and 10 years. Revascularisation procedures favoured CABG at one and five years, with comparability at the remaining time points. In summation, the outcomes of this comprehensive meta-analysis suggest that PCI could serve as a feasible alternative to CABG in the context of uncomplicated LMCA disease. It's worth noting that CABG might still hold an advantage for complex lesions.

A Novel Technique for Preparation, Staining, and Visualization of Tissue with Metal Implants and Extraskeletal Calcification Areas

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel technique for preparation, staining, and visualization of tissues containing extra-skeletal mineralization areas, all-metal implants or their prototypes for their subsequent examination using scanning electron microscopy in the backscattered electron mode.

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.