We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
Drug-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of four randomized trials and seventeen observational studies.
Trials 2013
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.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app