Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Aakash Garg, Sunil V. Rao, Sahil Agrawal, Kleanthis Theodoropoulos, Marco Mennuni, Abhishek Sharma, Lohit Garg, Giuseppe Ferrante, Omar A. Meelu, Davit Sargsyan, Bernhard Reimers, Marc Cohen, John B. Kostis, Giulio G. Stefanini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies had shown acceptable short-term efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). We aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of PCI using DES compared with CABG in patients with LMCAD. On November 1, 2016, we searched available databases for published RCTs directly comparing DES PCI with CABG in patients with LMCAD. Odds ratios (ORs) were used as the metric of choice for treatment effects using a random-effects model. I-squared index was used to assess heterogeneity across trials. Prespecified end points were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization at maximal available follow-up. We identified 5 RCTs including a total of 4,595 patients, with a median follow-up of 60 months. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.34) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.42) were comparable between PCI with DES and CABG. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences between PCI with DES and CABG for MI (OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.40) and stroke (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.98). Conversely, repeat revascularization was significantly higher with PCI compared with CABG (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.51 to 2.21). In conclusion, in patients with LMCAD, PCI with DES appears to be a viable alternative to CABG at long-term follow-up, with similar risks of ischemic adverse events (mortality, MI, and stroke) but a higher risk of repeat revascularization.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1942-1948
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiology
Volume119
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 15 2017

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this