Percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery disease an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Lei Gao, Yuqi Liu, Zhijun Sun, Yabin Wang, Feng Cao and Yundai Chen _

PDF  |  HTML  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2017; 8:66449-66457. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.20142

Metrics: PDF 1105 views  |   HTML 2046 views  |   ?  


Lei Gao1,*, Yuqi Liu1,*, Zhijun Sun1,*, Yabin Wang1, Feng Cao1 and Yundai Chen1

1Department of Cardiology, PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China

*Authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence to:

Yundai Chen, email: [email protected]

Keywords: left main coronary artery, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, drug-eluting stent, meta-analysis

Received: March 21, 2017     Accepted: July 29, 2017     Published: August 10, 2017


Objectives: To compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stent (DES) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) for the treatment of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease.

Background: Several new randomized trials have recently examined the clinical outcomes of PCI and CABG in LMCA disease. However, the results of these studies were inconsistent.

Materials and Methods: We searched five online electronic databases to identify all the randomized clinical trials assessing the outcomes of PCI using DES and CABG in patients with LMCA. The clinical outcomes were the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization (RR).

Results: A total of 5 randomized clinical trials with 4595 LMCA patients were included in this meta-analysis. For one year follow-up, the results indicated that PCI were associated with a lower risk of stroke (RR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.07–0.65, P = 0.007), a higher risk of RR (RR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.28–2.33, P < 0.001) than CABG. Moreover, for long-term follow-up, there were significant higher risks of MACCE and RR with PCI versus CABG (MACCE: HR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.11–1.44, P = 0.001; RR: HR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.42–2.05, P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in all-cause death and MI risks, regardless of follow-up duration.

Conclusions: PCI is noninferior to CABG in short term follow-up of patients with LMCA disease, but CABG is more safety and efficacy than PCI using DES in long-term follow-up.

Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 20142