Meta-analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract

Despite the increase in use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in left main coronary disease, its efficacy compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the optimal revascularization strategy. Our search yielded 8 studies reporting relevant outcomes that were pooled using the inverse variance method, and the hazard ratio (HR) was calculated. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]), and the secondary outcome was death/MI/stroke/repeat revascularization (expanded MACE). Differences in outcomes classified by follow-up duration (early: 0 to 1 year; late: 3 to 5 years) or anatomical complexity of coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score) were investigated. Our results suggest no difference in either early or late MACE (early: HR 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 1.05; late: HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.56) or expanded MACE (early: HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.52; late: HR 1.16; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.43) between the 2 groups. There was an increased risk of expanded MACE with a high SYNTAX score for PCI (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.92) at late follow-up. There were comparable rates of all-cause mortality and nonprocedural MI between the 2 groups with increased rates of repeat revascularization with PCI throughout the follow-up and higher rates of stroke with coronary artery bypass grafting early in the follow-up period. In conclusion, our analysis suggests that CABG may be preferable in patients with left main disease and high SYNTAX scores, assuming they are at low surgical risk, and PCI may be an acceptable alternative in patients with low-intermediate SYNTAX scores.