Format

Send to

Choose Destination
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 May;7(5):497-506. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.12.202. Epub 2014 Apr 16.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with first-generation drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Author information

1
Division of Cardiology, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
2
Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
3
Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Division of Clinical Epidemiology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
4
Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Division of Cardiology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: mark.eisenberg@mcgill.ca.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

This study sought to compare the efficacy of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) to that of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with first-generation drug-eluting stents among patients with multivessel disease (MVD), unprotected left main (LM) disease, and single-vessel proximal left anterior descending (LAD) disease.

BACKGROUND:

The efficacy and safety of CABG versus PCI with drug-eluting stents in patient subgroups remains controversial.

METHODS:

We systematically searched Cardiosource, Circulation, Clinicaltrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Medline for articles published through June 2013 for randomized controlled trials comparing CABG with PCI. Primary endpoints included mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke. Data were meta-analyzed with random-effects models.

RESULTS:

We identified 7 randomized controlled trials (N = 5,835): 2 of MVD (n = 2,410, 100% diabetic), 2 of LM disease (n = 1,206, 29.0% diabetic), 1 of 3-vessel or LM disease (n = 1,900, 25.5% diabetic), and 2 of single-vessel proximal LAD disease (n = 319, 36.3% diabetic). In MVD patients, CABG reduced the risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 0.87), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.61), and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.52), but increased stroke risk (RR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.90). In patients with LM disease, CABG reduced revascularization risk (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.78) and increased stroke risk (RR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.15 to 7.27). Data for patients with single-vessel proximal LAD disease were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS:

CABG is more efficacious than is PCI with first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with LM and MVD, at the cost of increased rates of stroke. No conclusion can be drawn for patients with single-vessel proximal LAD disease.

KEYWORDS:

coronary artery bypass graft; drug-eluting stent(s); meta-analysis

PMID:
24746647
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcin.2013.12.202
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center