A Meta-Analysis of 3,773 Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California 90048, USA.
JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions (Impact Factor: 7.35). 09/2009; 2(8):739-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.05.020
Source: PubMed


This study sought to understand the total weight of evidence regarding outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis.
Following a diagnosis of significant ULMCA stenosis in an individual that is a candidate for surgery, CABG is recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, whereas PCI is not recommended (Class III).
Databases were searched for clinical studies that reported outcomes after PCI and CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis. Ten studies were identified that included a total of 3,773 patients.
Meta-analysis showed that death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events) were similar in the PCI- and CABG-treated patients at 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84 [95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 1.22]), 2 years (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 0.81 to 1.94]), and 3 years (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 0.68 to 1.98]). Target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group at 1 year (OR: 4.36 [95% CI: 2.60 to 7.32]), 2 years (OR: 4.20 [95% CI: 2.21 to 7.97]), and 3 years (OR: 3.30 [95% CI: 0.96 to 11.33]). There was no difference in mortality in PCI- versus CABG-treated patients at 1 year (OR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.70 to 1.41]), 2 years (OR: 1.27 [95% CI: 0.83 to 1.94]), and 3 years (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.66 to 1.86]).
Our analysis reveals no difference in mortality or major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, for up to 3 years, between PCI and CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis. However, PCI patients had a significantly higher risk of target vessel revascularization. In selected patients with ULMCA stenosis, PCI is emerging as an acceptable option.

Download full-text


Available from: Prediman K Shah, Oct 02, 2015
34 Reads
  • Source
    • "Critical LMCA stenosis puts patients at high risk of cardiovascular events because of the extent of jeopardized myocardium and associated multi-vessel coronary artery disease and, therefore, it has been considered as the most important coronary lesion in terms of prognosis. Current practice guidelines suggest coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the standard procedure for patients with unprotected LMCA disease5-7 primarily because long-term outcomes of surgical revascularization are superior to those of medical treatment.8-10 However, because of anatomic accessibility and other characteristics, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for LMCA disease was attractive to the interventional cardiologist, and data from several archives showed its feasibility and short and midterm effectiveness. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Critical stenosis of left main coronary artery (LMCA) has always remained a challenge for interventional cardiologists. Conventionally Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) is done for these patients but recently Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is also being tried more frequently, but data of PCI is scarce in this regard. Our objective was to determine the safety and technical success rate of percutaneous left main coronary artery stenting. Methods: This was 12 month follow up study conducted at Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad from 11th Jan 2012 to 11th Jan 2013. All symptomatic patients who underwent coronary angiogram at PIMS and were found to have either isolated LMCA disease or coexisting osteal Left Anterior Descending (LAD) artery disease were potentially eligible for the study. Patients who had previous surgical treatment for coronary artery disease and those with renal dysfunction requiring dialysis were excluded. Patients were counselled in detail regarding the pros and cons of PCI versus CABG.Those who opted for PCI were included in the study. All these patients were treated with percutaneous left main coronary artery stenting with or without osteal LAD stenting. Results: Seventy two patients had LMCA disease during angiogram. Fifteen patients opted for CABG. Four patients did not meet the inclusion criteria, whereas 53 patients were finally enrolled. Mean age of patients were 55.45±10.275 years. Twenty nine patients were with acute coronary syndrome and 22 presented with unstable angina.PCI with stenting was technically successful in all patients. One patient died three months after PCI, there was no other mortality. Conclusion: Our study showed that Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) to LMS has good technical success rate; the safety of the procedure is also acceptable.
    Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences Online 07/2014; 30(4):735-8. DOI:10.12669/pjms.304.4859 · 0.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Recently, three meta-analyses [10,12,37], including RCTs and observational studies, showed no significant differences in the safety between CABG and DES, and superiority of CABG to DES for repeated revascularization in patients with ULMCAD. A meta-analysis including 3,773 patients and follow-up of 3 years believed that PCI was emerging as an acceptable option. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The clinical application of drug-eluting stents (DES) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) is still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy between DES and CABG for ULMCAD. Methods Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Results Twenty-one studies with 8,413 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The risk was lower in DES than in CABG groups at the early outcomes of death (risk ratio (RR): 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–0.78), cerebrovascular events (RR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.08–0.45) and composite endpoint (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40–0.70); death after 2 years (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.66–0.99), 4 years (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53–0.90), 5 years (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.61–0.95) and their total effect (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.71–0.87); composite endpoint 1 year (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58–0.83), 4 years (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53–0.88), 5 years (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.59–0.92) and their total effect (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.71–0.85). There were no significant differences in the risk for the early outcomes of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.68–1.38), death 1 year (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.57–1.15) and 3 years (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69–1.04), composite endpoint of 2 years (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72–1.09) and 3 years (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73–1.04). Nonetheless, there was a lower risk for revascularization associated with CABG from 1 to 5 years and their total effect (RR: 3.77, 95% CI: 3.35–4.26). There was no difference in death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events or revascularization at 1 year between RCT and observational groups. Conclusions Our meta-analysis indicates that DES has higher safety but higher revascularization than CABG in patients with ULMCAD in the 5 years after intervention.
    Trials 05/2013; 14(1):133. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-14-133 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
Show more