Five-year outcomes comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background and aimsIn patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD), long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PCI with DES and CABG in LMCAD patients. MethodsWe comprehensively searched in Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the 5-year clinical outcomes between PCI with DES and CABG in LMCAD patients. Random-effect models were applied to analyse risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) across studies, and I2 to assess heterogeneity. ResultsWe screened 4 RCTs including 4394 patients distributed randomly into PCI (n = 2197) and CABG (n = 2197) groups. In comparison to CABG, PCI showed non-inferiority concerning a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (HR 1.22, 95% confident interval [CI] 0.84–1.75), death (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81–1.40) and stroke (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42–1.53). Regarding major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate, both strategies show clinical equipoise in patients with a low-to-intermediate Synergy Between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.85–1.70), while CABG had an advantage over PCI in those with a high SYNTAX score (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20–2.24). ConclusionsCABG showed advantage over PCI with DES for LMCAD patients in MACCE. PCI and CABG showed equivalent 5-year clinical risk of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, but the former had higher risk of repeat revascularization.