Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graftinge Among Patients with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in the New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents Era (From the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-3).

Long-term safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still controversial in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD), and there is a scarcity of real-world data on the comparative long-term clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG for ULMCAD in new-generation drug-eluting stents era. The CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG registry Cohort-3 enrolled 14927 consecutive patients undergoing first coronary revascularization with PCI or isolated CABG between January 2011 and December 2013, and we identified 855 patients with ULMCAD (PCI: N = 383 [45%], and CABG: N = 472 [55%]). The primary outcome measure was all-cause death. Median follow-up duration was 5.5 (interquartile range: 3.9 to 6.6) years. The cumulative 5-year incidence of all-cause death was not significantly different between the PCI and CABG groups (21.9% vs 17.6%, Log-rank p = 0.13). After adjusting confounders, the excess risk of PCI relative to CABG remained insignificant for all-cause death (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.47; p = 0.99). There were significant excess risks of PCI relative to CABG for myocardial infarction and any coronary revascularization (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.37; p = 0.002, and HR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.96 to 4.46; p < 0.001), whereas there was no significant excess risk of PCI relative to CABG for stroke (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.41; p = 0.52). In conclusion, there was no excess long-term mortality risk of PCI relative to CABG, while the excess risks of PCI relative to CABG were significant for myocardial infarction and any coronary revascularization in the present study population reflecting real-world clinical practice in Japan.