Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundIt is not clear whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is as effective and safe as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PCI and CABG in left main coronary disease. MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus and relevant references for RCTs (inception through, November 20, 2016 without language restrictions) and performed meta-analysis using random-effects model. All-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization rate, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were the measured outcomes. ResultsSix RCTs with a total population of 4700 were analyzed. There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 30-day, one-year, and five-year (1.8% vs 1.1%; OR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.26-1.39; P=.23; I-2=9%) follow-up between PCI and CABG. CABG group had less myocardial infarction (MI) at five-year follow-up than PCI (5% vs 2.5%; OR 2.04; CI: 1.30-3.19; P=.002; I-2=1%). Revascularization rate favored CABG in one-year (8.6% vs 4.5%; OR 2; CI: 1.46-2.73; P<.0001; I-2=45%) and five-year (15.9% vs 9.9%; OR 1.73; CI: 1.36-2.20; P<.0001; I-2=0%) follow-up. Although stroke rate was lower in PCI group at 1year, there was no difference in longer follow-up. MACCE at 5years favored CABG (24% vs 18%; OR 1.45; CI: 1.19-1.76; P=.0001; I-2=0%). On subgroup analysis, MACCE were not different between two groups in low-to-intermediate SYNTAX group while it was higher for PCI group with high SYNTAX group. ConclusionPercutaneous coronary intervention could be as safe and effective as CABG in a select group of left main coronary artery disease patients.