TY - JOUR
T1 - Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting
T2 - A meta-analysis of patients with left main coronary artery disease
AU - Spinthakis, Nikolaos
AU - Farag, Mohamed
AU - Gorog, Diana A
AU - Prasad, Abhiram
AU - Mahmood, Hamid
AU - Gue, Ying
AU - Wellsted, David
AU - Nabhan, Ashraf
AU - Srinivasan, Manivannan
N1 - © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. This manuscript version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License CC BY NC-ND 4.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
PY - 2017/12/15
Y1 - 2017/12/15
N2 - BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), in comparison to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) remains controversial.METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomised studies comparing patients with LMCAD treated with PCI with DES versus those treated with CABG, with respect to clinical outcomes at 1, 3 and 5years. A secondary meta-analysis was performed according to low (<32), or high (≥33) SYNTAX score.RESULTS: Five studies comprising 4595 patients were included. There was no significant difference in all-cause death at all time points or when stratified with respect to SYNTAX score. The need for repeat revascularization was significantly higher with PCI at all time-points, and regardless of SYNTAX score. There was significant association between need for repeat revascularization with PCI and diabetics (p=0.04). At 5years, non-fatal MI was higher with PCI owing to increased non-procedural events (OR 3.00; CI 1.45-6.21; p=0.003). CABG showed higher rate of stroke at 1year (OR 0.21; CI 0.07-0.63; p=0.005). There was no difference in non-fatal MI or stroke at other time points, nor according to SYNTAX score.CONCLUSIONS: PCI with DES or CABG are equivalent strategies for LMCAD up to 5years with respect to death, regardless of SYNTAX score. PCI increases the rate of non-procedural MI at 5years. CABG avoids the need for repeat revascularization, especially in diabetics, but this benefit is offset by higher rate of stroke in the first year of follow up.
AB - BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), in comparison to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) remains controversial.METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomised studies comparing patients with LMCAD treated with PCI with DES versus those treated with CABG, with respect to clinical outcomes at 1, 3 and 5years. A secondary meta-analysis was performed according to low (<32), or high (≥33) SYNTAX score.RESULTS: Five studies comprising 4595 patients were included. There was no significant difference in all-cause death at all time points or when stratified with respect to SYNTAX score. The need for repeat revascularization was significantly higher with PCI at all time-points, and regardless of SYNTAX score. There was significant association between need for repeat revascularization with PCI and diabetics (p=0.04). At 5years, non-fatal MI was higher with PCI owing to increased non-procedural events (OR 3.00; CI 1.45-6.21; p=0.003). CABG showed higher rate of stroke at 1year (OR 0.21; CI 0.07-0.63; p=0.005). There was no difference in non-fatal MI or stroke at other time points, nor according to SYNTAX score.CONCLUSIONS: PCI with DES or CABG are equivalent strategies for LMCAD up to 5years with respect to death, regardless of SYNTAX score. PCI increases the rate of non-procedural MI at 5years. CABG avoids the need for repeat revascularization, especially in diabetics, but this benefit is offset by higher rate of stroke in the first year of follow up.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.09.156
DO - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.09.156
M3 - Article
C2 - 28958756
SN - 0167-5273
VL - 249
SP - 101
EP - 106
JO - International Journal of Cardiology
JF - International Journal of Cardiology
ER -