Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery for left main disease according to lesion site: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Comparative data after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease according to lesion site (ostial/shaft vs distal) are scant. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate outcomes after PCI or CABG for ULMCA disease according to lesion site.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and adjusted observational studies that compared PCI versus CABG in patients with ULMCA disease and reported outcomes according to lesion site were systematically identified. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization) and all-cause death were the co-primary end points. Individual components of MACE were secondary end points. Sensitivity analysis including RCTs only were performed for each outcome.

RESULTS

Nine studies (3 RCTs, 6 adjusted observational), encompassing 6296 patients (2274 and 4022 treated for ostial/shaft or distal ULMCA, respectively) were included. At the 5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between CABG and PCI for MACE, death, or any other secondary outcome for ostial/shaft ULMCA lesions (MACE: hazard ratio [HR], 1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.27]; death: HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.84-1.46]). For distal ULMCA, PCI was associated with an increased risk of MACE (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.58), death (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.19-2.04), and revascularization (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.5-2.84). The benefit of CABG for MACE and revascularization was confirmed in the analysis limited to RCTs, whereas the benefit for mortality was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with distal ULMCA disease, CABG is associated with lower incidence of MACE and revascularization compared with PCI, whereas no differences in outcomes were observed for ostial/shaft ULMCA disease.