Abstract 16260: Thirty Days Major Adverse Cardiac Events Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Non-ste-acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-analysis With Meta-regression

Abstract

Background: The optimum revascularization modality in multi-vessel and left main disease patients presenting with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (non-STE-ACS) is not well studied. The current recommendations are based on studies that primarily included patients with stable angina. Patients with non-STE-ACS were under-represented in clinical trials. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in non-STE-ACS, and reporting 30 days major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Methods: We searched Medline, EmCare, CINAHL, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar for relevant articles. We excluded studies that included patients with stable coronary artery disease and ST elevation myocardial infarction. Our primary outcome was 30 days MACE defined as all-cause death, stroke, repeat revascularization and re-infarction. We used the Paule-Mandel method with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment to estimate risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgin’s I 2 statistics. To account for heterogeneity, a meta-regression analysis was performed. Results: Five observational studies met our inclusion criteria summing to a total number of 7161 patients. At 30 days, there was no difference between CABG vs. PCI in terms of MACE, RR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.39, I 2 = 81% (Panel A). A meta-regression analysis reported that a history of PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACE with CABG compared to PCI (Panel B). Conclusion: At 30 days, there was no difference in MACE between the CABG and PCI groups. However, a history of PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACE in patients who underwent CABG.