Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main revascularization: an updated meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The optimal revascularization strategy for left main coronary artery disease (LMD) remains controversial, especially with two recent randomized controlled trials showing conflicting results. We sought to address this controversy with our analysis.

Methods and results

Comprehensive literature search was performed. We compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for LMD revascularization using standard meta-analytic techniques. A 21% higher risk of long-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event [MACCE; composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization] was observed in patients undergoing PCI in comparison with CABG [risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.40]. T

SUBMITTER: Bajaj NS 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5730452 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature