Navkaranbir S Bajaj1,2, Nirav Patel2, Rajat Kalra3, Peter Marogil4, Ashwanikumar Bhardwaj2, Garima Arora2, Pankaj Arora2,5. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1900 University Boulevard Birmingham, AL 35233, USA. 3. Cardiovascular Division, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Brookwood Baptist Health, 2010 Brookwood Medical Center Drive Birmingham, AL 35209, USA. 5. Section of Cardiology, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 700 19th St S, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA.
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]. 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. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
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. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Enno Boudriot; Holger Thiele; Thomas Walther; Christoph Liebetrau; Peter Boeckstegers; Tilmann Pohl; Bruno Reichart; Harald Mudra; Florian Beier; Brigitte Gansera; Franz-Josef Neumann; Michael Gick; Thomas Zietak; Steffen Desch; Gerhard Schuler; Friedrich-Wilhelm Mohr Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rajat Kalra; Pankaj Arora; Charity Morgan; Fadi G Hage; Ami E Iskandrian; Navkaranbir S Bajaj Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Marie-Claude Morice; Patrick W Serruys; A Pieter Kappetein; Ted E Feldman; Elisabeth Ståhle; Antonio Colombo; Michael J Mack; David R Holmes; James W Choi; Witold Ruzyllo; Grzegorz Religa; Jian Huang; Kristine Roy; Keith D Dawkins; Friedrich Mohr Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 29.690