Objectives: To compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stent (DES) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) for the treatment of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease.
Background: Several new randomized trials have recently examined the clinical outcomes of PCI and CABG in LMCA disease. However, the results of these studies were inconsistent.
Materials and methods: We searched five online electronic databases to identify all the randomized clinical trials assessing the outcomes of PCI using DES and CABG in patients with LMCA. The clinical outcomes were the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization (RR).
Results: A total of 5 randomized clinical trials with 4595 LMCA patients were included in this meta-analysis. For one year follow-up, the results indicated that PCI were associated with a lower risk of stroke (RR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.07-0.65, P = 0.007), a higher risk of RR (RR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.28-2.33, P < 0.001) than CABG. Moreover, for long-term follow-up, there were significant higher risks of MACCE and RR with PCI versus CABG (MACCE: HR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.11-1.44, P = 0.001; RR: HR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.42-2.05, P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in all-cause death and MI risks, regardless of follow-up duration.
Conclusions: PCI is noninferior to CABG in short term follow-up of patients with LMCA disease, but CABG is more safety and efficacy than PCI using DES in long-term follow-up.
Keywords: coronary artery bypass graft; drug-eluting stent; left main coronary artery; meta-analysis; percutaneous coronary intervention.