Percutaneous Versus Surgical Revascularization for Left Main or Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Results From a Large-Scale Meta-Analysis in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents

Abstract

The best treatment options for left main (LM) or multivessel coronary disease (MVD) are still debated. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing percutaneous versus surgical revascularization for LM or MVD. Primary end point was overall mortality. Secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events, recurrent myocardial infarction, repeated revascularization, or stroke. A total of 8 randomized trials were included, involving 8694 patients, 50% undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). At a mean follow-up of 39.7 months, mortality was 8.2% with no difference for PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; odds ratio [OR] 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 [0.90-1.55]; P = .24, P for heterogeneity [ Phet] = .01). However, CABG was slightly favored for MVD (OR [95% CI] = 1.54 [1.12-2.13]; P = .008, Phet = .14 for PCI) whereas noninferior for LM disease (OR [95% CI] = 0.88 [0.60-1.29]; P = .50, Phet = .10, P interaction = .03). A similar benefit with CABG was also observed in terms of repeated coronary revascularization, whereas PCI significantly reduced stroke. This meta-analysis shows that surgical coronary revascularization still offers advantages in survival and recurrent ischemic events compared to PCI using drug-eluting stents (DES) in MVD although burdened by an increased risk of stroke. In LM disease, CABG did not provide outcome benefits but was associated with a higher risk of stroke compared to PCI. Additional randomized trials are certainly needed with new-generation DES.