OBJECTIVES: We undertook a meta-analysis to assess outcomes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists regarding the relative performance of DES versus BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary stenosis. METHODS: Of a total of 838 studies, 44 met inclusion criteria (n = 10,342). The co-primary end points were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: mortality, MI, TVR/TLR). RESULTS: Event rates for DES and BMS were calculated at 6 to 12 months, at 2 years, and at 3 years. Crude event rates at 3 years were mortality (8.8% and 12.7%), MI (4.0% and 3.4%), TVR/TLR (8.0% and 16.4%), and MACE (21.4% and 31.6%). Nine studies were included in a comparative analysis (n = 5,081). At 6 to 12 months the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06 to 15.48; p = 0.97), MI 0.64 (95% CI: 0.19 to 2.17; p = 0.47), TVR/TLR 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.84; p = 0.01), and MACE 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.78; p = 0.01). At 2 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.42 (95% CI: 0.28 to 0.62; p < 0.01), MI 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01 to 3.53; p = 0.13), and MACE 0.31 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.66; p < 0.01). At 3 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.92; p = 0.01), MI 0.49 (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.92; p = 0.03), TVR/TLR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.69; p < 0.01), and MACE 0.78 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.07; p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that DES is associated with favorable outcomes for mortality, MI, TVR/TLR, and MACE as compared to BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Copyright 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: We undertook a meta-analysis to assess outcomes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists regarding the relative performance of DES versus BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary stenosis. METHODS: Of a total of 838 studies, 44 met inclusion criteria (n = 10,342). The co-primary end points were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: mortality, MI, TVR/TLR). RESULTS: Event rates for DES and BMS were calculated at 6 to 12 months, at 2 years, and at 3 years. Crude event rates at 3 years were mortality (8.8% and 12.7%), MI (4.0% and 3.4%), TVR/TLR (8.0% and 16.4%), and MACE (21.4% and 31.6%). Nine studies were included in a comparative analysis (n = 5,081). At 6 to 12 months the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06 to 15.48; p = 0.97), MI 0.64 (95% CI: 0.19 to 2.17; p = 0.47), TVR/TLR 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.84; p = 0.01), and MACE 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.78; p = 0.01). At 2 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.42 (95% CI: 0.28 to 0.62; p < 0.01), MI 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01 to 3.53; p = 0.13), and MACE 0.31 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.66; p < 0.01). At 3 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.92; p = 0.01), MI 0.49 (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.92; p = 0.03), TVR/TLR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.69; p < 0.01), and MACE 0.78 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.07; p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that DES is associated with favorable outcomes for mortality, MI, TVR/TLR, and MACE as compared to BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Copyright 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Marco Valgimigli; Patrizia Malagutti; Gaston A Rodriguez Granillo; Keiichi Tsuchida; Héctor M Garcia-Garcia; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Willem J Van der Giessen; Pim De Feyter; Peter de Jaegere; Ron T Van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Peter Barlis; Mark Horrigan; Safari Elis; Robert Chan; Michael Wong; Omar Farouque; George Proimos; Andrew E Ajani; David J Clark Journal: Cardiovasc Revasc Med Date: 2007 Apr-Jun
Authors: Ahmed A Khattab; Christian W Hamm; Jochen Senges; Ralph Toelg; Volker Geist; Tassilo Bonzel; Malte Kelm; Benny Levenson; Franz-Josef Neumann; Christoph A Nienaber; Thomas Pfannebecker; Georg Sabin; Steffen Schneider; Ulrich Tebbe; Gert Richardt Journal: Heart Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Michael S Lee; Dario Sillano; Azeem Latib; Alaide Chieffo; Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai; Ravi Bhatia; Imad Sheiban; Antonio Colombo; Jonathan Tobis Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: E Meliga; H M Garcia-Garcia; M Valgimigli; A Chieffo; G Biondi-Zoccai; A O Maree; N Gonzalo; S Cook; S Marra; C Moretti; S De Servi; I F Palacios; S Windecker; R van Domburg; A Colombo; I Sheiban; P W Serruys Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2008-08-06 Impact factor: 4.164