Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

Author:

Nerlekar Nitesh1,Ha Francis J.1,Verma Kunal P.1,Bennett Martin R.1,Cameron James D.1,Meredith Ian T.1,Brown Adam J.1

Affiliation:

1. From the Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); MonashHeart, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom (M.R.B., A.J.B.).

Abstract

Background— Current guidelines suggest that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should be the preferred revascularization method for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. In light of evidence from recent randomized trials, we assessed whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents is as safe and effective as CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Methods and Results— Digital databases and manual searches were performed for randomized trials comparing PCI and CABG for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Among 3887 potentially relevant studies, 5 met inclusion criteria. The primary safety end point was defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included a clinical effectiveness composite, which was defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Summary estimates were obtained using random-effects modeling. In total, 4594 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the primary safety end point between the revascularization strategies (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79–1.17; P =0.73). However, when compared with CABG, PCI was less effective (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18–1.58; P <0.001) because of significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.53–2.23; P <0.001). The incidence of all-cause death (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78–1.35; P =0.61), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.88–2.45; P =0.08), and stroke (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.39–1.97; P =0.53) did not differ between PCI and CABG. Conclusions— PCI using drug-eluting stents and CABG are equally safe methods of revascularization for patients at low surgical risk with significant unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. However, CABG is associated with significantly lower rates of repeat revascularization.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3