Five-year outcomes comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and

Aims: In patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD), long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PCI with DES and CABG in LMCAD patients.

Methods: We comprehensively searched in Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the 5-year clinical outcomes between PCI with DES and CABG in LMCAD patients. Random-effect models were applied to analyse risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) across studies, and I2 to assess heterogeneity.

Results: We screened 4 RCTs including 4394 patients distributed randomly into PCI (n = 2197) and CABG (n = 2197) groups. In comparison to CABG, PCI showed non-inferiority concerning a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (HR 1.22, 95% confident interval [CI] 0.84-1.75), death (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.40) and stroke (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42-1.53). Regarding major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate, both strategies show clinical equipoise in patients with a low-to-intermediate Synergy Between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.85-1.70), while CABG had an advantage over PCI in those with a high SYNTAX score (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24).

Conclusions: CABG showed advantage over PCI with DES for LMCAD patients in MACCE. PCI and CABG showed equivalent 5-year clinical risk of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, but the former had higher risk of repeat revascularization.