Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease in chronic kidney disease patients: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background Limited data exist on the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this population. Methods Multiple electronic databases were queried for studies comparing CABG and PCI in CKD patients undergoing LMCAD (>50% diameter stenosis) revascularization. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate of <60 ml/min/1.73 m2. The primary outcome was long-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and repeat revascularization. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random effect model. Results Six studies (4 observational, 2 randomized controlled trials) met inclusion criteria with a total of 2051 patients (CABG: 977, PCI: 1074). Patients undergoing CABG had a higher incidence of multi-vessel disease (74.7% vs 65.7%, p=0.01). At a mean follow-up of 3.4±1.1 years, MACCE was significantly lower in the CABG group (OR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.57–0.87; p=0.001) (Figure 1). The odds of MI or repeat revascularization were lower with CABG, whereas the odds of stroke were higher; no statistically-significant difference was seen in all-cause mortality. Conclusion This meta-analysis shows that CABG is associated with lower rates of MACCE and MI but with a higher rate of stroke compared to PCI in LMCAD patients with CKD. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None