Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies Comparing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Narrowings

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. The current American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines recommend CABG for the treatment of patients with ULMCA disease on the basis of clinical trials demonstrating a survival benefit with CABG compared to medical therapy. DES reduce the rate of target vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents in ULMCA PCI and may be a safe alternative to CABG. A meta-analysis was conducted of clinical studies comparing CABG and PCI with DES for ULMCA disease with respect to death; the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and target vessel revascularization at 1 year follow-up. The analysis included 2,905 patients from 8 clinical studies (2 randomized trials and 6 nonrandomized studies). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference between the CABG and DES groups in the risk for death (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80 to 1.56) or the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.82). The risk for target vessel revascularization was significantly lower in the CABG group compared to the PCI group (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59). In conclusion, PCI with DES is safe and could represent a good alternative to CABG for selected cases in patients with ULMCA disease.