Literature DB >> 28760214

Clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary revascularization vs coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of 6 randomized trials and 4,686 patients.

Tullio Palmerini1, Patrick Serruys2, Arie Pieter Kappetein3, Philippe Genereux4, Diego Della Riva1, Letizia Bacchi Reggiani1, Evald Høj Christiansen5, Niels R Holm5, Leif Thuesen6, Timo Makikallio7, Marie Claude Morice8, Jung-Min Ahn9, Seung-Jung Park9, Holger Thiele10, Enno Boudriot11, Mario Sabatino1, Mattia Romanello1, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai12, Raphael Cavalcante13, Joseph F Sabik14, Gregg W Stone15.   

Abstract

Some but not all randomized controlled trials (RCT) have suggested that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD). We therefore aimed to compare the risk of all-cause mortality between PCI and CABG in patients with ULMCAD in a pairwise meta-analysis of RCT.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing PCI vs CABG for the treatment of ULMCAD were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings.
RESULTS: Six trials including 4,686 randomized patients were identified. After a median follow-up of 39 months, there were no significant differences between PCI vs CABG in the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.30) or cardiac mortality. However, a significant interaction for cardiac mortality (Pinteraction= .03) was apparent between randomization arm and SYNTAX score, such that the relative risk for mortality tended to be lower with PCI compared with CABG among patients in the lower SYNTAX score tertile, similar in the intermediate tertile, and higher in the upper SYNTAX score tertile. Percutaneous coronary intervention compared with CABG was associated with a similar long-term composite risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82-1.37), with fewer events within 30 days after PCI offset by fewer events after 30 days with CABG (Pinteraction < .0001). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with greater rates of unplanned revascularization compared with CABG (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.47-2.07).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing revascularization for ULMCAD, PCI was associated with similar rates of mortality compared with CABG at a median follow-up of 39 months, but with an interaction effect suggesting relatively lower mortality with PCI in patients with low SYNTAX score and relatively lower mortality with CABG in patients with high SYNTAX score. Both procedures resulted in similar long-term composite rates of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with PCI offering an early safety advantage and CABG demonstrating greater durability.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28760214     DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.05.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  17 in total

Review 1.  Cardiac surgery 2017 reviewed.

Authors:  Torsten Doenst; Hristo Kirov; Alexandros Moschovas; David Gonzalez-Lopez; Rauf Safarov; Mahmoud Diab; Steffen Bargenda; Gloria Faerber
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 2.  Effects of Catheterization on Artery Function and Health: When Should Patients Start Exercising Following Their Coronary Intervention?

Authors:  Andrea Tryfonos; Daniel J Green; Ellen A Dawson
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 3.  The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

Authors:  Matthew A Brown; Seth Klusewitz; John Elefteriades; Lindsey Prescher
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2021-11-10

4.  Death, coronary revascularization choices, and chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Richard J Solomon; Jeremiah R Brown
Journal:  Coron Artery Dis       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 1.439

Review 5.  The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Harshith R Avula; Andrew N Rassi
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 5.113

6.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery for unprotected left main disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Mohamed Rahouma; Ahmed Abouarab; Antonino Di Franco; Jeremy R Leonard; Christopher Lau; Mohamed Kamel; Lucas B Ohmes; Leonard N Girardi; Mario Gaudino
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-07

7.  Percutaneous vs. surgical revascularization for patients with unprotected left main stenosis: a meta-analysis of 5-year follow-up randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Fabrizio D'Ascenzo; Ovidio De Filippo; Edoardo Elia; Mattia Paolo Doronzo; Pierluigi Omedè; Antonio Montefusco; Mauro Pennone; Stefano Salizzoni; Federico Conrotto; Guglielmo Gallone; Filippo Angelini; Luca Franchin; Francesco Bruno; Massimo Boffini; Mario Gaudino; Mauro Rinaldi; Gaetano Maria De Ferrari
Journal:  Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes       Date:  2021-09-16

8.  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

9.  Evaluation of Left Main Coronary Artery Using Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Its Pitfalls.

Authors:  Vincent Roule; Idir Rebouh; Adrien Lemaitre; Mathieu Bignon; Pierre Ardouin; Rémi Sabatier; Fabien Labombarda; Katrien Blanchart; Farzin Beygui
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 10.  Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularisation Surgery: A Focused Review of the Available Literature.

Authors:  Karel M Van Praet; Markus Kofler; Timo Z Nazari Shafti; Alaa Abd El Al; Antonia van Kampen; Andrea Amabile; Gianluca Torregrossa; Jörg Kempfert; Volkmar Falk; Husam H Balkhy; Stephan Jacobs
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2021-05-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.