Percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomised trials

Giuseppe Ferrante, Patrizia Presbitero, Marco Valgimigli, Marie Claude Morice, Paolo Pagnotta, Guido Belli, Elena Corrada, Yoshinobu Onuma, Peter Barlis, Didier Locca, Eric Eeckhout, Carlo Di Mario, Patrick W. Serruys

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aims: We performed a meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (ULMCA). Methods and results: Pubmed and other databases were searched. Data were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Four randomised trials enrolling 1,611 patients were selected. At 12-month follow-up PCI, as compared to CABG, was associated with a significant risk reduction of stroke (0.12% vs. 1.90%, OR 0.14, 95% CI [0.04 to 0.55], p=0.004), with an increased risk of repeat revascularisation (11.03% vs. 5.45%, OR 2.17, 95% CI [1.48 to 3.17], p

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)738-746
Number of pages9
JournalEuroIntervention
Volume7
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2011

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Coronary artery bypass graft surgery
  • Left main coronary artery disease
  • Percutaneous coronary intervention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Ferrante, G., Presbitero, P., Valgimigli, M., Morice, M. C., Pagnotta, P., Belli, G., Corrada, E., Onuma, Y., Barlis, P., Locca, D., Eeckhout, E., Mario, C. D., & Serruys, P. W. (2011). Percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomised trials. EuroIntervention, 7(6), 738-746. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV7I6A117