Journal Article
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Long-term outcomes comparison between surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary disease or left main disease. A systematic review and study level meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Recent randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) utilizing drug-eluting stents in patients with left main (LMD) disease and/or multivessel disease (MVD), reported conflicting results. We performed a study level meta-analysis comparing the two interventions for the treatment of LMD or MVD. Using electronic databases, we retrieved 6 trials, between January, 2010 and December, 2022. Five-years Kaplan-Meier curves of endpoints where reconstructed. Comparisons were made by Cox-linear regression frailty model and by landmark analysis. A random-effect method was applied. 8269 patients were included and randomly assigned to CABG (n=4135) or PCI (n=4134). During 5-years follow-up, PCI showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.47; p<0.0001)], spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 1.84; 95% CI, 1.54-2.19; p<0.0001) and repeat coronary revascularization (HR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.72-2.24; p<0.0001). There was no long-term difference between the two interventions for cardiovascular death (p=0.14) and stroke (p=0.20), although the incidence of stroke was higher with CABG within 30-days from intervention (p<0.0001). PCI was associated with an increased risk for composite endpoints (p<0.0001) and major cerebral and cardiovascular events. (p<0.0001). In conclusion, at 5-year follow-up, in patients with LMD and/or MVD there was a significant higher incidence of all-cause mortality, spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization with PCI compared to CABG. The incidence of stroke was higher with CABG during the post-procedural period, but no difference was found during 5-years follow-up. Longer follow-up is mandatory to better define outcome difference between the two interventions.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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