Percutaneous coronary intervention versus repeat surgical revascularization in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectivesRepeat coronary artery bypass grafting (RCABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are both used for the treatment of symptomatic patients with coronary artery disease and prior CABG, but the optimal treatment strategy remains unknown. We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare operative and follow-up outcomes following RCABG versus PCI in patients with prior CABG. MethodsMedline and Embase were searched for studies comparing RCABG versus PCI. The primary outcome was follow-up mortality, and secondary outcomes were follow-up repeat revascularization, operative mortality, periprocedural stroke, and myocardial infarction. Time-to-event outcomes were summarized as incidence rate ratios, whereas operative outcomes were summarized as odds ratios. A random effect meta-analysis was performed. Individual patient survival data was extracted from available survival curves and reconstructed using restricted mean survival time. ResultsAmong 2982 articles, 7 studies (9945 patients) were included. In the aggregated data meta-analysis, there was no difference in follow-up survival between RCABG and PCI (incidence rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.83-1.25); however, restricted mean survival time analysis of individual data showed a survival benefit for RCABG over PCI (0.7 years; 95% CI, 0.23-1.19 years; P = .004). PCI was found to have a higher incidence rate of follow-up need for repeat revascularization (incidence rate ratio, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.16-2.23), but lower odds for operative mortality and stroke. No difference in the odds for myocardial infarction was found. ConclusionsIn patients with prior CABG, PCI is associated with better operative outcomes, but RCABG is associated with better survival and freedom from repeat revascularization at follow-up.