Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Graft for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
ABSTRACT: Background:The safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for stable left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) remains controversial. Methods:Digital databases were searched to compare the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its components. A random effect model was used to compute an unadjusted odds ratio (OR). Results:A total of 43 studies (37 observational and 6 RCTs) consisting of 29,187 patients (PCI 13,709 and CABG 15,478) were identified. The 30-day rate of MACCE (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76; p?=?0.0002) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.91; p?=?0.02) was significantly lower in the PCI group. There was no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) (p?=?0.17) and revascularization (p?=?0.12). At 5 years, CABG was favored due to a significantly lower rate of MACCE (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.18-2.36; p?=?<0.04), MI (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.35-2.06; p?=?<0.00001), and revascularization (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.18-3.60; p?=?<0.00001), respectively. PCI was associated with a lower overall rate of a stroke, while the risk of all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups at 1- (p?=?0.75), 5- (p?=?0.72), and 10-years (p?=?0.20). The Kaplan-Meier curve reconstruction revealed substantial variations over time; the 5-year incidence of MACCE was 38% with CABG, significantly lower than 45% with PCI (p?=?<0.00001). Conclusion:PCI might offer early safety advantages, while CABG provides greater durability in terms of lower long-term risk of ischemic events. There appears to be an equivalent risk for all-cause mortality.
Project description: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]. This risk was driven by higher rate of repeat revascularization in those undergoing PCI (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.34-1.95). On the contrary, MACCE rates at 30 days were lower in PCI when compared with CABG (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.76), which was driven by lower rates of stroke in the PCI arm (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.98). At 1 year, lower stroke rates (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.59) in the PCI arm were balanced by higher repeat revascularization rates in those undergoing PCI (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.33-2.37), resulting in a clinical equipoise in MACCE rates between the two revascularization strategies. There was no difference in death or MI between PCI when compared with CABG at any time point. Conclusion:Outcomes of CABG vs. PCI for LMD revascularization vary over time. Therefore, individualized decisions need to be made for LMD revascularization using the heart team approach.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Older adults (?70-year-old) are under-represented in the published data pertaining to unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD). HYPOTHESIS:Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) might be comparable to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for revascularization of ULMCAD. METHODS:We compared PCI versus CABG in older adults with ULMCAD with an aggregate data meta-analyses (4880 patients) of clinical outcomes [all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, stroke and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events(MACCE)] at 30 days, 12-24 months & ?36 months in patients with mean age ?70 years and ULMCAD. A meta-regression analysis evaluated the effect of age on mortality after PCI. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using random-effects model. RESULTS:All-cause mortality between PCI and CABG was comparable at 30-days (OR0.77, 95% CI 0.42- 1.41) and 12-24-months (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.78-1.93). PCI was associated with a markedly lower rate of stroke at 30-day follow-up in octogenarians (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.76) but an overall higher rate of repeat revascularization. At ?36-months, MACCE (OR 1.26,95% CI 0.99-1.60) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.00-1.93) showed a trend favoring CABG but did not reach statistical significance. On meta-regression, PCI was associated with a higher mortality with advancing age (coefficient=0.1033, p=0.042). CONCLUSIONS:PCI was associated with a markedly lower rate of early stroke in octogenarians as compared to CABG. All-cause mortality was comparable between the two arms with a trend favoring CABG at ?36-months.PCI was however associated with increasing mortality with advancing age as compared to CABG.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Several updated meta-analyses comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LM CAD) have been published recently. However, the risk of false-positive results could be high in conventional updated meta-analyses due to repetitive testing of accumulating data. Therefore, we compared these treatment approaches via trial sequential analysis (TSA).<h4>Methods</h4>The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or subgroups of RCTs comparing PCI and CABG in patients with LM CAD. The primary outcome was major cardiac and cerebrovascular adverse events (MACCE). TSA was used to confirm the conclusions derived from conventional meta-analysis.<h4>Results</h4>Six RCTs with 4700 patients were included. PCI was associated with a greater risk of MACCE compared with CABG (pooled relative risk [RR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.40, P?=?.008). In addition, PCI resulted in a significantly higher risk of revascularization than CABG (pooled RR 1.61, 95% CI: 1.33-1.95, P?<?.0001). TSA provided firm evidence for the reduction of MACCE and revascularization with CABG compared with PCI (cumulative z-curve crossed the monitoring boundary). In the subgroup analysis, CABG was better than PCI in patients with SYNTAX score >32 (pooled RR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.12-1.76, P?=?.003), which was confirmed by the TSA. There was no difference in patients with a SYNTAX score from 0 to 32.<h4>Conclusions</h4>In patients with LM CAD, CABG may be better than PCI for reducing MACCE due to a reduced risk of revascularization. CABG remains the first choice for LM CAD patients with high anatomic complexity, while PCI could be an alternative for those with low-to-moderate anatomic complexity.
Project description:Results on the safety and long-term efficacy of drug-eluting stent placement in unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) compared with those of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) remain inconsistent across randomized clinical trials and recent meta-analysis studies. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and safety over short- and long-term follow-ups by conducting a meta-analysis of large pooled data from randomized controlled trials and up-to-date observational studies.A systematic review of PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and reference lists of related articles was performed for studies conducted in the drug-eluting stent era, to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with CABG in ULMCAD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, all-cause mortality, and revascularization after at least 1-year follow-up. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were considered secondary outcomes. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of studies with ?5 years follow-up was performed to test the sustainability of clinical outcomes.A total of 29 studies were extracted with 21,832 patients (10,424 in PCI vs 11,408 in CABG). Pooled analysis demonstrated remarkable differences in long-term follow-up (?1 year) MACCE (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.27-1.59), P?<?.00001), repeat revascularization (OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.41-3.73, P?<?.00001), and MI (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.14-1.53, P?=?.0002), favoring CABG over PCI. However, stroke risk was significantly lower in the PCI group. Subgroup analysis of studies with ?5 years follow-up showed similar outcomes except for the noninferiority outcome of MACCE in the PCI arm. However, the PCI group proved good safety profile after a minimum of 30-day follow-up with lower MACCE outcome.PCI for ULMCAD can be applied with attentiveness in carefully selected patients. MI and the need for revascularization remain drawbacks and areas of concern among previous studies. Nonetheless, it has been proven safe during short-term follow-up.
Project description:Randomized trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) routinely exclude patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).This study evaluated outcomes of PCI versus CABG in patients with CKD.Patients with CKD who underwent PCI using everolimus-eluting stents were propensity-score matched to patients who underwent isolated CABG for multivessel coronary disease in New York. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization.Of 11,305 patients with CKD, 5,920 patients were propensity-score matched. In the short term, PCI was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 0.87), stroke (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.42), and repeat revascularization (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.98) compared with CABG. In the longer term, PCI was associated with a similar risk of death (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.24), higher risk of MI (HR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.23), a lower risk of stroke (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.76), and a higher risk of repeat revascularization (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 2.05 to 2.85). In the subgroup with complete revascularization with PCI, the increased risk of MI was no longer statistically significant (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.67 to 2.09). In the 243 matched pairs of patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis, PCI was associated with significantly higher risk of death (HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.93) and repeat revascularization (HR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.50 to 3.96) compared with CABG.In patients with CKD, CABG is associated with higher short-term risk of death, stroke, and repeat revascularization, whereas PCI with everolimus-eluting stents is associated with a higher long-term risk of repeat revascularization and perhaps MI, with no long-term mortality difference. In the subgroup on dialysis, the results favored CABG over PCI.
Project description:Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES), and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) was analyzed in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease over a 5-year follow-up.DES implantation reducing revascularization rate and associated costs might be attractive for health economics as compared to CABG.Consecutive patients with multivessel DES-PCI (n?=?114, 3.3?±?1.2 DES/patient) or CABG (n?=?85, 2.7?±?0.9 grafts/patient) were included prospectively. Primary endpoint was cost-benefit of multivessel DES-PCI over CABG, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Secondary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), all-cause death, revascularization, and stroke.Despite multiple uses for DES, in-hospital costs were significantly less for PCI than CABG, with 4551 €/patient difference between the groups. At 5-years, the overall costs remained higher for CABG patients (mean difference 5400 € between groups). Cost-effectiveness planes including all patients or subgroups of elderly patients, diabetic patients, or Syntax score >32 indicated that CABG is a more effective, more costly treatment mode for multivessel disease. At the 5-year follow-up, a higher incidence of MACCE (37.7% vs. 25.8%; log rank P?=?0.048) and a trend towards more AMI/death/stroke (25.4% vs. 21.2%, log rank P?=?0.359) was observed in PCI as compared to CABG. ICER indicated 45615 € or 126683 € to prevent one MACCE or AMI/death/stroke if CABG is performed.Cost-effectiveness analysis of DES-PCI vs. CABG demonstrated that CABG is the most effective, but most costly, treatment for preventing MACCE in patients with multivessel disease.
Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIM:Treatment of patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCA) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with unprotected LMCA treated randomly by PCI or CABG. METHODS:PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov database searches identified five randomized trials (RCTs) including 4499 patients with unprotected LMCA comparing PCI (n = 2249) vs. CABG (n = 2250), with a minimum clinical follow-up of five years. Random effect risk ratios were used for efficacy and safety outcomes. The study was registered in PROSPERO. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction or stroke. RESULTS:Compared to CABG, patients assigned to PCI had a similar rate of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.36; p = 0.19), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 0.97 to 2.25; p = 0.07) and stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.23; p = 0.42). Additionally, all-cause mortality (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.28; p = 0.48) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.43; p = 0.31) were not different. However, the risk of any repeat revascularization (RR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.15; p < 0.00001) was higher in patients assigned to PCI. CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that the long-term survival and MACE of patients who underwent PCI for unprotected LMCA stenosis were comparable to those receiving CABG, despite a higher rate of repeat revascularization.
Project description:Aim:Optimal revascularization strategy in multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) eligible for percutaneous management (PCI) and surgery remains unresolved. We evaluated, in a randomized clinical trial, residual myocardial ischemia (RI) and clinical outcomes of MV-CAD revascularization using coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), or MV-PCI. Methods:Consecutive MV-CAD patients (n?=?155) were randomized (1?:?1?:?1) to conventional CABG (LIMA-LAD plus venous grafts) or HCR (MIDCAB LIMA-LAD followed by PCI for remaining vessels) or MV-PCI (everolimus-eluting CoCr stents) under Heart Team agreement on equal technical and clinical feasibility of each strategy. SPECT at 12 months (primary endpoint of RI that the trial was powered for; a measure of revascularization midterm efficacy and an independent predictor of long-term prognosis) preceded routine angiographic control. Results:Data are given, respectively, for the CABG, HCR, and MV-PCI arms. Incomplete revascularization rate was 8.0% vs. 7.7% vs. 5.7% (p=0.71). Hospital stay was 13.8 vs. 13.5 vs. 4.5 days (p < 0.001), and sick-leave duration was 23 vs. 16 vs. 8 weeks (p < 0.001). At 12 months, RI was 5 (2, 9)% vs. 5 (3, 7)% vs. 6 (3, 10)% (median; Q1, Q3) with noninferiority p values of 0.0006 (HCR vs. CABG) and 0.016 (MV-PCI vs. CABG). Rates of angiographic graft stenosis/occlusion or in-segment restenosis were 20.4% vs. 8.2% vs. 5.9% (p=0.05). Clinical target vessel/graft failure occurred in 12.0% vs. 11.5% vs. 11.3% (p=0.62). Major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE) rate was similar (12% vs. 13.4% vs. 13.2%; p=0.83). Conclusion:In this first randomized controlled study comparing CABG, HCR, and MV-PCI, residual myocardial ischemia and MACCE were similar at 12 months. There was no midterm indication of any added value of HCR. Hospital stay and sick-leave duration were shortest with MV-PCI. While longer-term follow-up is warranted, these findings may impact patient and physician choices and healthcare resources utilization. This trial is registered with NCT01699048.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with premature triple-vessel disease (PTVD) have a higher risk of recurrent coronary events and repeat revascularization; however, the long-term outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and medical therapy (MT) alone for PTVD patients is controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term outcome of PTVD patients among these three treatment strategies, to find out the most appropriate treatment methods for these patients. METHODS:One thousand seven hundred and ninety-two patients with PTVD (age: men ?50 years and women ?60 years) were enrolled between 2004 and 2011. The primary end point was all-cause death. The secondary end points were cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. RESULTS:PCI, CABG, and MT alone were performed in 933 (52.1%), 459 (25.6%), and 400 (22.3%) patients. Both PCI and CABG were associated with lower all-cause death (4.6% vs. 4.1% vs. 15.5%, respectively, P < 0.01) and cardiac death (2.8% vs. 2.0% vs. 9.8%, respectively, P < 0.01) versus MT alone. The rate of repeat revascularization in the CABG group was significantly lower than those in the PCI and MT groups. After adjusting for baseline factors, PCI and CABG were still associated with similar lower risk of all-cause death and cardiac death versus MT alone (all-cause death: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.53, P < 0.01 and HR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.18-0.70, P = 0.003, respectively, and cardiac death: HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19-0.54, P < 0.01 and HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.14-0.93, P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:PCI and CABG provided equal long-term benefits for all-cause death and cardiac death for PTVD patients. Patients undergoing MT alone had the worst long-term clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT02634086. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02634086?term=NCT02634086&rank=1.
Project description:To compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and multivessel coronary artery disease.1213 patients were selected from institutional databases, 761 and 452 in CABG and PCI group respectively. Only the subjects with left ventricle ejection fraction ? 35% and multivessel coronary artery disease were included to the study. The primary outcome measure was long-term all-cause death, the secondary outcomes were recurrent myocardial infarction, urgent repeat revascularization and stroke. Propensity Score-Based Adjusted Survival Curves were used for revascularization methods comparison.Survival rates were similar in both groups (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.28; p=0.59). Recurrent myocardial infarction was observed significantly less often in the CABG group (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.74; p=0.002). Repeat urgent revascularization was less frequent in the CABG group (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30-0.84; p=0.008). The rate of stroke did not differ between the groups (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.62-2.22; p=0.62).In patients with HFrEF and multivessel CAD revascularization both with CABG and PCI resulted in similar survival rates. PCI is associated with increased risk of recurrent MI and urgent repeat revascularization, whereas the risk of stroke is similar in both methods.