Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease is still controversial. This is systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) for LM disease. MethodsOnline electronic databases were systematically reviewed until January 2020 for randomized trials comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents and CABG. Primary outcomes were: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeated revascularization. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural and nonperiprocedural MI. The period of follow-up included 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated with a fixed-effects model. ResultsA total of 4595 patients (5 randomized trials) with left main coronary artery disease were included. At 30 days and 1 year, PCI was associated with lower incidence of stroke, higher repeated revascularization, and similar odds of mortality and MI compared with CABG. At 5 years, PCI was associated with higher rates of MI (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.79; P = .003) and repeat revascularization (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.58-2.26; P < .001) than CABG. PCI was associated with lower periprocedural MI at 30 days, whereas at 5 years PCI was associated with higher nonperiprocedural MI (odds ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.31; P < .001). Mortality and stroke rate did not differ at 5-year follow-up. ConclusionsPatients with left main coronary artery disease treated with either PCI or CABG do not show significant difference in early or 5-year mortality. Although CABG was associated with higher stroke rates at 30 days and 1 year, PCI was associated with an increase in MI and need for repeat revascularization at 5 years.