Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background: It is not clear whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is as effective and safe as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PCI and CABG in left main coronary disease. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus and relevant references for RCTs (inception through, November 20, 2016 without language restrictions) and performed meta-analysis using random-effects model. All-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization rate, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were the measured outcomes. Results: Six RCTs with a total population of 4700 were analyzed. There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 30-day, one-year, and five-year (1.8% vs 1.1%; OR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.26-1.39; P=.23; I2=9%) follow-up between PCI and CABG. CABG group had less myocardial infarction (MI) at five-year follow-up than PCI (5% vs 2.5%; OR 2.04; CI: 1.30-3.19; P=.002; I2=1%). Revascularization rate favored CABG in one-year (8.6% vs 4.5%; OR 2; CI: 1.46-2.73; P