Jian Zhang1, Tangxing Jiang1, Yaping Hou1, Fengying Chen2, Kehui Yang1, Wentao Sang1, Hongzhi Wu1, Yanyan Ma1, Feng Xu3, Yuguo Chen4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China; Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Institute of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine of Shandong University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China; Key Laboratory of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine of Shandong Province, Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary-Cerebral Resuscitation Research of Shandong Province, Shandong Provincial Engineering Laboratory for Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China; The Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Remodeling and Function Research, Chinese Ministry of Education, Chinese Ministry of Health and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, The State and Shandong Province Joint Key Laboratory of Translational Cardiovascular Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China. 2. Emergency Department, The Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Huhhot, China. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China; Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Institute of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine of Shandong University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China; Key Laboratory of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine of Shandong Province, Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary-Cerebral Resuscitation Research of Shandong Province, Shandong Provincial Engineering Laboratory for Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China; The Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Remodeling and Function Research, Chinese Ministry of Education, Chinese Ministry of Health and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, The State and Shandong Province Joint Key Laboratory of Translational Cardiovascular Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China. Electronic address: xufengsdu@126.com. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China; Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Institute of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine of Shandong University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China; Key Laboratory of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine of Shandong Province, Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary-Cerebral Resuscitation Research of Shandong Province, Shandong Provincial Engineering Laboratory for Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China; The Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Remodeling and Function Research, Chinese Ministry of Education, Chinese Ministry of Health and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, The State and Shandong Province Joint Key Laboratory of Translational Cardiovascular Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China. Electronic address: chen919085@sdu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD), long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PCI with DES and CABG in LMCAD patients. METHODS: We comprehensively searched in Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the 5-year clinical outcomes between PCI with DES and CABG in LMCAD patients. Random-effect models were applied to analyse risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) across studies, and I2 to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS: We screened 4 RCTs including 4394 patients distributed randomly into PCI (n = 2197) and CABG (n = 2197) groups. In comparison to CABG, PCI showed non-inferiority concerning a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (HR 1.22, 95% confident interval [CI] 0.84-1.75), death (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.40) and stroke (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42-1.53). Regarding major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate, both strategies show clinical equipoise in patients with a low-to-intermediate Synergy Between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.85-1.70), while CABG had an advantage over PCI in those with a high SYNTAX score (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24). CONCLUSIONS: CABG showed advantage over PCI with DES for LMCAD patients in MACCE. PCI and CABG showed equivalent 5-year clinical risk of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, but the former had higher risk of repeat revascularization.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD), long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PCI with DES and CABG in LMCAD patients. METHODS: We comprehensively searched in Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the 5-year clinical outcomes between PCI with DES and CABG in LMCAD patients. Random-effect models were applied to analyse risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) across studies, and I2 to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS: We screened 4 RCTs including 4394 patients distributed randomly into PCI (n = 2197) and CABG (n = 2197) groups. In comparison to CABG, PCI showed non-inferiority concerning a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (HR 1.22, 95% confident interval [CI] 0.84-1.75), death (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.40) and stroke (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42-1.53). Regarding major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate, both strategies show clinical equipoise in patients with a low-to-intermediate Synergy Between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.85-1.70), while CABG had an advantage over PCI in those with a high SYNTAX score (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24). CONCLUSIONS: CABG showed advantage over PCI with DES for LMCAD patients in MACCE. PCI and CABG showed equivalent 5-year clinical risk of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, but the former had higher risk of repeat revascularization.