Literature DB >> 28433215

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

Aakash Garg1, Sunil V Rao2, Sahil Agrawal3, Kleanthis Theodoropoulos4, Marco Mennuni5, Abhishek Sharma6, Lohit Garg7, Giuseppe Ferrante5, Omar A Meelu8, Davit Sargsyan9, Bernhard Reimers5, Marc Cohen10, John B Kostis9, Giulio G Stefanini11.   

Abstract

Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies had shown acceptable short-term efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). We aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of PCI using DES compared with CABG in patients with LMCAD. On November 1, 2016, we searched available databases for published RCTs directly comparing DES PCI with CABG in patients with LMCAD. Odds ratios (ORs) were used as the metric of choice for treatment effects using a random-effects model. I-squared index was used to assess heterogeneity across trials. Prespecified end points were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization at maximal available follow-up. We identified 5 RCTs including a total of 4,595 patients, with a median follow-up of 60 months. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.34) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.42) were comparable between PCI with DES and CABG. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences between PCI with DES and CABG for MI (OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.40) and stroke (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.98). Conversely, repeat revascularization was significantly higher with PCI compared with CABG (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.51 to 2.21). In conclusion, in patients with LMCAD, PCI with DES appears to be a viable alternative to CABG at long-term follow-up, with similar risks of ischemic adverse events (mortality, MI, and stroke) but a higher risk of repeat revascularization.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28433215     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.03.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  5 in total

1.  Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of multivessel coronary disease: quo vadis? -a review of the evidences on coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Cristiano Spadaccio; Umberto Benedetto
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-07

2.  Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary artery disease: looking beyond clinical end-points.

Authors:  Aakash Garg; Hitesh Raheja; Marc Cohen
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-12

3.  Rheolytic effects of left main mid-shaft/distal stenting: a computational flow dynamic analysis.

Authors:  Gianluca Rigatelli; Marco Zuin; Fabio Dell'Avvocata; Thach Nguyen
Journal:  Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2018-03-28

4.  All-cause mortality and major cardiovascular outcomes comparing percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: a meta-analysis of short-term and long-term randomised trials.

Authors:  Jari A Laukkanen; Setor K Kunutsor; Matti Niemelä; Kari Kervinen; Leif Thuesen; Timo H Mäkikallio
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2017-12-10

5.  The epidemiology of coronary artery bypass surgery in a community hospital: A comparison between 2 periods.

Authors:  Tomer Ziv-Baran; Rephael Mohr; Farhang Yazdchi; Dan Loberman
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.889

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.