Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Jul 1;3(3):173-182.
doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcx008.

Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main revascularization: an updated meta-analysis

Navkaranbir S Bajaj  1   2 , Nirav Patel  2 , Rajat Kalra  3 , Peter Marogil  4 , Ashwanikumar Bhardwaj  2 , Garima Arora  2 , Pankaj Arora  2   5
Affiliations
Review

Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main revascularization: an updated meta-analysis

Navkaranbir S Bajaj et al. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. .

Abstract

Aims: The optimal revascularization strategy for left main coronary artery disease (LMD) remains controversial, especially with two recent randomized controlled trials showing conflicting results. We sought to address this controversy with our analysis.

Methods and results: Comprehensive literature search was performed. We compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for LMD revascularization using standard meta-analytic techniques. A 21% higher risk of long-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event [MACCE; composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization] was observed in patients undergoing PCI in comparison with CABG [risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.40]. This risk was driven by higher rate of repeat revascularization in those undergoing PCI (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.34-1.95). On the contrary, MACCE rates at 30 days were lower in PCI when compared with CABG (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.76), which was driven by lower rates of stroke in the PCI arm (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.98). At 1 year, lower stroke rates (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.59) in the PCI arm were balanced by higher repeat revascularization rates in those undergoing PCI (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.33-2.37), resulting in a clinical equipoise in MACCE rates between the two revascularization strategies. There was no difference in death or MI between PCI when compared with CABG at any time point.

Conclusion: Outcomes of CABG vs. PCI for LMD revascularization vary over time. Therefore, individualized decisions need to be made for LMD revascularization using the heart team approach.

Keywords: Coronary artery bypass; Left main disease; Meta-analysis; Percutaneous coronary intervention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram for study selection. ULMCA, Unprotected left main coronary artery disease.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot comparing major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. The blue diamond is the point estimate with the line representing the 95% confidence interval. The red dotted line represents the random effects generated overall estimate. Data are presented with risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. CABG, Coronary artery bypass grafting; CI, Confidence intervals; MACCE, Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention; RR, Risk ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots comparing for all-cause mortality (Panel A), myocardial infarction (Panel B), stroke (Panel C), and all revascularization (Panel D) between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. The blue diamond is the point estimate with the line representing the 95% confidence interval. The red dotted line represents the random effects generated overall estimate. Data are presented with risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. CABG, Coronary artery bypass grafting; CI, Confidence intervals; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention; RR, Risk ratio.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Panel A: Forest plot comparing outcomes stratified by time between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. Data are presented with risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Risk ratio at 30 days: MAACE was derived from EXCEL, PRECOMBAT, and LE MANS trials; all revascularization and myocardial infarction were derived from NOBLE, EXCEL, LEIPZIG, and LE MANS trials; stroke and all-cause mortality were derived from NOBLE, EXCEL, and LE MANS trials. Risk ratio for 1 year outcomes were derived from SYNTAX, NOBLE, PRECOMBAT, LEIPZIG, and LE MANS trials. Risk ratio for at long-term outcomes were derived from SYNTAX, NOBLE, EXCEL, PRECOMBAT, LEIPZIG, and LE MANS trials. Panel B: Forest plot comparing outcomes stratified by SYNTAX score categories between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. Data are presented with risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Risk ratio for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event was derived from SYNTAX, NOBLE, and PRECOMBAT trials and risk ratio for other outcomes was derived from SYNTAX and PRECOMBAT trials. CABG, Coronary artery bypass grafting; CI, Confidence intervals; MACCE, Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention; RR, Risk ratio.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Schematic representation of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event outcome comparison (percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting) for left main disease revascularization. CABG, Coronary artery bypass grafting; MACCE, Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plots assessing cumulative (Panel A) and one study removed (Panel B) sensitivity meta-analysis to assess the effect of individual studies on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event. Data are presented with risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. CABG, Coronary artery bypass grafting; CI, Confidence intervals; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention; RR, Risk ratio.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Depiction of publication bias for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) between percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting. Hollow blue circles represent available studies. Hollow red circles represent imputed studies. The solid blue diamond is the log risk ratio for MACCE prior to publication bias adjustment. The solid red diamond is the log risk ratio for MACCE after publication bias adjustment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Ragosta M, Dee S, Sarembock IJ, Lipson LC, Gimple LW, Powers ER. Prevalence of unfavorable angiographic characteristics for percutaneous intervention in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;68:357–362. - PubMed
    1. Conley MJ, Ely RL, Kisslo J, Lee KL, McNeer JF, Rosati RA. The prognostic spectrum of left main stenosis. Circulation 1978;57:947–952. - PubMed
    1. Taggart DP, Kaul S, Boden WE, Ferguson TB Jr, Guyton RA, Mack MJ, Sergeant PT, Shemin RJ, Smith PK, Yusuf S. Revascularization for unprotected left main stem coronary artery stenosis stenting or surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:885–892. - PubMed
    1. Fihn SD, Blankenship JC, Alexander KP, Bittl JA, Byrne JG, Fletcher BJ, Fonarow GC, Lange RA, Levine GN, Maddox TM, Naidu SS, Ohman EM, Smith PK. 2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS focused update of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1929–1949. - PubMed
    1. Makikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, Spence MS, Erglis A, Menown IB, Trovik T, Eskola M, Romppanen H, Kellerth T, Ravkilde J, Jensen LO, Kalinauskas G, Linder RB, Pentikainen M, Hervold A, Banning A, Zaman A, Cotton J, Eriksen E, Margus S, Sorensen HT, Nielsen PH, Niemela M, Kervinen K, Lassen JF, Maeng M, Oldroyd K, Berg G, Walsh SJ, Hanratty CG, Kumsars I, Stradins P, Steigen TK, Frobert O, Graham AN, Endresen PC, Corbascio M, Kajander O, Trivedi U, Hartikainen J, Anttila V, Hildick-Smith D, Thuesen L, Christiansen EH. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016;388:2743–2752. - PubMed

MeSH terms