Coronary surgery provides better survival than drug-eluting stent: A pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan–Meier-derived individual patient data

Abstract

ObjectivesWe explored the current evidence on coronary disease treatment comparing the survival of 2 therapeutic strategies: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES). MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing CABG versus PCI with DES. The end point was overall mortality. Two statistical approaches were used: the generic inverse variance method, which was used to pool the incident rate ratios, and the pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan–Meier-derived individual patient data. ResultsEight randomized clinical trials comparing 4975 patients undergoing CABG and 4992 patients undergoing PCI were included in our meta-analysis. Generic inverse variance method showed a statistically significant survival benefit of the CABG group (incident rate ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.35; P < .01). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of survival at 1, 5, and 10 years of the CABG group were 97.1%, 90.3%, and 80.3%, respectively. The Kaplan–Meier estimates of survival at 1, 5, and 10 years of the PCI group were 97.0%, 87.7%, and 76.4%, respectively. The log-rank analysis confirmed a statistically significant benefit in term of overall mortality of the CABG group (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.38; P = .0001). ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis suggests that CABG provides a consistent survival benefit over PCI with DES.