Meta-Analysis of Comparison of 5-Year Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery in the Era of Drug-eluting Stents

Abstract

Patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease are increasingly being treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES), but long-term outcomes comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain limited. We performed aggregate data meta-analyses of clinical outcomes (all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, cardiac death, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events) in studies comparing 5-year outcomes of PCI with DES versus CABG in patients with ULMCA disease. A comprehensive literature search (January 1, 2003 to December 10, 2016) identified 9 studies (6,637 patients). Effect size for individual clinical outcomes was estimated using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random effects model. At 5 years, PCI with DES was associated with equivalent cardiac (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.46) and all-cause mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33), lower rates of stroke (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.84), and higher rates of repeat revascularization (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.91); compared with CABG, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events showed a trend favoring CABG but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54). In conclusion, for ULMCA disease, PCI can be considered as a comparably effective and yet less invasive alternative to CABG given the comparable long-term mortality and lower incidences of stroke.