Very Long-term Outcomes and Predictors of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Drug-eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Patients with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

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

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.

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.

Drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left-main coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

To compare follow-up outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left-main coronary artery disease (LMCAD), we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with propensity-score analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through November 2016. Eligible studies were RCTs or observational studies with propensity-score analysis of DES-PCI versus CABG enrolling patients with LMCAD and reporting ≥ 6-month mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization (RRV). Study-specific estimates were combined using inverse variance-weighted averages of logarithmic hazard ratios (HRs) in the random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 5 RCTs and 17 observational studies with propensity-score analysis enrolling a total of 12,387 patients. Pooled analysis demonstrated a significant increase in a composite of death, MI, and RRV (with/without stroke) after DES-PCI (HR, 1.42; P < 0.00001); no significant difference in a composite of death and MI (with/without stroke); no significant differences in mortality and stroke; a strong trend toward an increase in MI after DES-PCI (HR, 1.44; P = 0.05); and significant increases in any (HR, 1.86; P < 0.00001), target-vessel (HR, 3.28; P < 0.00001), and target-lesion RRV (HR, 2.26; P = 0.003) after DES-PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with CABG, DES-PCI for LMCAD was associated with increases in RRV and the composite of death, MI, and RRV (with/without stroke), despite no differences in mortality, MI, stroke, and the composite of death and MI (with/without stroke).

Meta-analysis study comparing percutaneous coronary intervention/drug eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass surgery of unprotected left main coronary artery disease: Clinical outcomes during short-term versus long-term (> 1 year) follow-up

BACKGROUND

Results on the safety and long-term efficacy of drug-eluting stent placement in unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) compared with those of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) remain inconsistent across randomized clinical trials and recent meta-analysis studies. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and safety over short- and long-term follow-ups by conducting a meta-analysis of large pooled data from randomized controlled trials and up-to-date observational studies.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and reference lists of related articles was performed for studies conducted in the drug-eluting stent era, to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with CABG in ULMCAD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, all-cause mortality, and revascularization after at least 1-year follow-up. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were considered secondary outcomes. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of studies with ≥5 years follow-up was performed to test the sustainability of clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies were extracted with 21,832 patients (10,424 in PCI vs 11,408 in CABG). Pooled analysis demonstrated remarkable differences in long-term follow-up (≥1 year) MACCE (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.27-1.59), P < .00001), repeat revascularization (OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.41-3.73, P < .00001), and MI (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.14-1.53, P = .0002), favoring CABG over PCI. However, stroke risk was significantly lower in the PCI group. Subgroup analysis of studies with ≥5 years follow-up showed similar outcomes except for the noninferiority outcome of MACCE in the PCI arm. However, the PCI group proved good safety profile after a minimum of 30-day follow-up with lower MACCE outcome.

CONCLUSION

PCI for ULMCAD can be applied with attentiveness in carefully selected patients. MI and the need for revascularization remain drawbacks and areas of concern among previous studies. Nonetheless, it has been proven safe during short-term follow-up.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between First and Second Generation Drug-eluting Stents in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Single-center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Lots of trials demonstrate that second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DES), with their improved properties, offer significantly superior efficacy and safety profiles compared to first generation DES (G1-DES) for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to verify the advantage of G2-DES over G1-DES in Chinese patients with stable CAD (SCAD).

METHODS

For this retrospective observational analysis, 2709 SCAD patients with either G1-DES (n = 863) or G2-DES (n = 1846) were enrolled consecutively throughout 2013. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to control differing baseline factors. Two-year outcomes, including major adverse coronary events as well as individual events, including target vessel-related myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization, and cardiogenic death were evaluated.

RESULTS

The incidence of revascularization between G1- and G2-DES showed a trend of significant difference with a threshold P - value (8.6% vs. 6.7%, χ2 = 2.995, P = 0.084). G2-DES significantly improved TLR-free survival compared to G1-DES (96.6% vs. 97.9%, P = 0.049) and revascularization-free survival curve showed a trend of improvement of G2-DES (92.0% vs. 93.8%, P = 0.082). These differences diminished after PSM. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis showed a trend for G1-associated increase in revascularization (hazard ratio: 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.72, P = 0.099) while no significance was found after PSM. Other endpoints showed no significant differences after multivariate adjustment regardless of PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

G1-DES showed the same safety as G2-DES in this large Chinese cohort of real-world patients. However, G2-DES improved TLR-free survival of SCAD patients 2 years after PCI. The advantage was influenced by baseline clinical factors. G1-DES was associated with a trend of increase in revascularization risk and was not an independent predictor of worse medium-term prognosis compared with G2-DES.

Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus on the long-term mortality in patients who were treated by coronary artery bypass surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent scientific reports have mainly focused on the comparison between coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on mortality in patients who were treated by CABG was often ignored. Therefore, we aimed to compare the long-term mortality following CABG in patients with and without T2DM.

METHODS

Studies comparing the long-term adverse outcomes following CABG in patients with and without T2DM were searched from electronic databases. Total number of deaths (primary outcome) and events of myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events (MACCEs), stroke, and repeated revascularization (secondary outcomes) were carefully extracted. An analysis was carried out whereby odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with a total number of 12,965 patients were included. Current results showed that mortality was significantly higher in patients with T2DM with OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.37 to 1.72, P < .00001; OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.36 to 1.72, P < .00001; and OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.87, P < .0001 at 1 to 15, 5 to 15, and 7 to 15 years, respectively. However, MI, repeated revascularization, MACCEs, and stroke were not significantly different with OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.64, P = .44; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.36, P = .43; OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.48, P = .48; and OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 0.93 to 3.07, P = .08, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Following CABG, a significantly higher rate of mortality was continually observed in patients with T2DM compared to patients without T2DM showing that the former apparently has a high impact on the long-term mortality. However, even if T2DM is an independent risk factor for mortality, it should not be ignored that CABG remains the best revascularization strategy in these patients.

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.