We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Left main coronary artery stenosis: a meta-analysis of drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting.
JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 2013 December
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to provide a systematic review comparing the long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (UPLM) stenosis.
BACKGROUND: One-year outcomes from randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and pooled analyses have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of PCI of the UPLM when compared with CABG. However, there remain concerns over the sustainability of PCI with DES at longer follow-up.
METHODS: Studies published between January 2000 and December 2012 of PCI versus CABG for UPLM stenosis were identified using an electronic search and reviewed using meta-analytical techniques.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies comprising 14,203 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference for all-cause mortality between PCI or CABG at 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.792, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 to 1.19), 2 years (OR: 0.920, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.26), 3 years (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.48), 4 years (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.33), and 5 years (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.08). The need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) was significantly higher in patients undergoing PCI at all time points. The occurrence of stroke, however, was significantly less frequent in patients treated with PCI. The occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction showed a statistically significant trend towards a lower incidence in CABG patients at 1 year (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.50), 2 years (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.35), and 3 years (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.36 to 3.1). There was no significant difference in combined major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that PCI with DES is a safe and durable alternative to CABG for the revascularization of UPLM stenosis in select patients at long-term follow-up.
BACKGROUND: One-year outcomes from randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and pooled analyses have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of PCI of the UPLM when compared with CABG. However, there remain concerns over the sustainability of PCI with DES at longer follow-up.
METHODS: Studies published between January 2000 and December 2012 of PCI versus CABG for UPLM stenosis were identified using an electronic search and reviewed using meta-analytical techniques.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies comprising 14,203 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference for all-cause mortality between PCI or CABG at 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.792, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 to 1.19), 2 years (OR: 0.920, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.26), 3 years (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.48), 4 years (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.33), and 5 years (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.08). The need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) was significantly higher in patients undergoing PCI at all time points. The occurrence of stroke, however, was significantly less frequent in patients treated with PCI. The occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction showed a statistically significant trend towards a lower incidence in CABG patients at 1 year (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.50), 2 years (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.35), and 3 years (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.36 to 3.1). There was no significant difference in combined major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that PCI with DES is a safe and durable alternative to CABG for the revascularization of UPLM stenosis in select patients at long-term follow-up.
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