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.

Citation data:

The American journal of cardiology, ISSN: 1879-1913, Vol: 119, Issue: 12, Page: 1942-1948

Publication Year:
Usage 36
Abstract Views 33
Link-outs 3
Captures 25
Readers 20
Exports-Saves 5
Social Media 8
Tweets 8
Citations 9
Citation Indexes 9
Repository URL:
Garg, Aakash, MD; Rao, Sunil V, MD; Agrawal, Sahil, MD; Theodoropoulos, Kleanthis, MD; Mennuni, Marco, MD; Sharma, Abhishek, MD; Garg, Lohit, MD; Ferrante, Giuseppe, MD, PhD; Meelu, Omar A, MS; Sargsyan, Davit, MS; Reimers, Bernhard, MD; Cohen, Marc, MD; Kostis, John B, MD, PhD; Stefanini, Giulio G, MD, PhD Show More Hide
Elsevier BV
Medicine; Left main coronary artery disease; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Drug eluting stents; Coronary artery bypass grafting; Long-term follow-up; Medicine and Health Sciences
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
review description
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.