Meta-Analysis Comparing the Risk of Myocardial Infarction Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract

There is insufficient data regarding the comparative efficacy of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) regarding myocardial infarction (MI). Our systematic review included randomized controlled trials that compared CABG versus PCI with stents in patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD). Included trials should have had reported event number of MI and a clinical follow-up of one or more years. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary end point was MI at the longest available follow-up in the intention-to-treat population. Fifteen trials with a total of 13,592 patients treated with either CABG (n = 6,596) or PCI (n = 6,996) were included. After a weighted follow-up of 4.5 years, patients treated with CABG had a significantly lower risk of MI than those treated with PCI (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 0.96, p = 0.024). The lower risk of MI with CABG as compared with PCI was more evident during a longer duration of follow-up (≥3 years, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, p = 0.008; ≥5 years, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86, p = 0.003) and in the diabetic population (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.70, p <0.001). The magnitude of risk reduction was similar across patients with multivessel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99) and left main CAD (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.15). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis of studies involving patients with multivessel or left main CAD suggests a significant benefit of CABG over PCI concerning the risk of future MI.