Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

Abstract

BackgroundDespite several clinical studies, efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left main (LM) disease remains controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis of randomized trials was to evaluate the clinical outcome of CABG versus PCI with drug-eluting stents in LM coronary disease. MethodsWe systematically searched online databases up to March 2017 for randomized trials comparing CABG to PCI with drug-eluting stents. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). ResultsWe included data from 5 randomized trials and 4595 patients. At 30days, CABG was associated with higher stroke (OR 2.54 [95% CI, 1.02–6.31]) and periprocedural myocardial infarction (OR 1.45 [95% CI, 1.00–2.10]), with no other significant differences compared to PCI. At 1year, CABG reduced repeat revascularization (OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.40–0.77]), but increased stroke (OR 5.11 [95% CI, 1.62–16.12]). At 3–5years, CABG reduced repeat revascularization (OR 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45–0.67]) and non-periprocedural myocardial infarction (OR 0.45 [95% CI, 0.29–0.70]), without significant differences on other outcomes. ConclusionsFrom the present updated meta-analysis of available studies on LM coronary disease treatment, there were no differences in mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke rate at 3–5years follow-up after CABG or PCI, but CABG decreased the rate of repeat revascularization and non-periprocedural infarction. However, at short-term follow-up, CABG showed higher rate of stroke and periprocedural myocardial infarction, but these effects attenuated over time. These findings merit further investigation at longer follow-up.