Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery for left main disease according to lesion site: A meta-analysis

被引:17
|
作者
De Filippo, Ovidio [1 ,13 ]
Di Franco, Antonino [4 ]
Boretto, Paolo [1 ]
Bruno, Francesco [1 ]
Cusenza, Vincenzo [1 ]
Desalvo, Paolo [1 ]
Demetres, Michelle [5 ]
Saglietto, Andrea [1 ]
Franchin, Luca [1 ]
Piroli, Francesco [1 ]
Marengo, Giorgio [1 ]
Elia, Edoardo [1 ]
Falk, Volkmar [6 ,7 ,8 ,9 ,10 ,11 ]
Conrotto, Federico [1 ]
Doenst, Torsten [12 ]
Rinaldi, Mauro [2 ,3 ]
De Ferrari, Gaetano Maria [1 ]
D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio [1 ]
Gaudino, Mario [4 ]
机构
[1] AOU Citta Salute & Sci Torino, Cardiovasc & Thorac Dept, Div Cardiol, Turin, Italy
[2] AOU Citta Salute & Sci Torino, Cardiovascularand Thorac Dept, Div Cardiac Surg, Turin, Italy
[3] Univ Turin, Turin, Italy
[4] Weill Cornell Med, Dept Cardiothorac Surg, New York, NY USA
[5] Weill Cor nell Med, Samuel J Wood Lib & CV Starr Biomed Informat Ctr, New York, NY USA
[6] German Heart Ctr Berlin, Dept Cardiothorac & Vasc Surg, Berlin, Germany
[7] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Cardiothorac Surg, Berlin, Germany
[8] Free Univ Berlin, Berlin, Germany
[9] Humboldt Univ, Berlin, Germany
[10] Berlin Inst Hlth, Berlin, Germany
[11] Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Dept Hlth Sci, Translat Cardiovasc Technol, Zurich, Switzerland
[12] Friedrich Schiller Univ Jena, Jena Univ Hosp, Jena, Germany
[13] AOU Citta Salute & Sci Torino, I-10126 Turin, Italy
来源
关键词
coronary artery disease; unprotected left main; coronary artery bypass graft; percutaneous coronary intervention; MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; BYPASS GRAFT; OUTCOMES; MORTALITY; STENOSIS; STENTS; CABG; PCI; REVASCULARIZATION; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.08.040
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Comparative data after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease according to lesion site (ostial/shaft vs distal) are scant. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate outcomes after PCI or CABG for ULMCA dis-ease according to lesion site. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and adjusted observational studies that compared PCI versus CABG in patients with ULMCA disease and reported out-comes according to lesion site were systematically identified. Major adverse cardio-vascular events (MACE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization) and all-cause death were the co-primary end points. Individual components of MACE were secondary end points. Sensitivity analysis including RCTs only were performed for each outcome. Results: Nine studies (3 RCTs, 6 adjusted observational), encompassing 6296 patients (2274 and 4022 treated for ostial/shaft or distal ULMCA, respectively) were included. At the 5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between CABG and PCI for MACE, death, or any other secondary outcome for ostial/shaft ULMCA lesions (MACE: hazard ratio [HR], 1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.27]; death: HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.84-1.46]). For distal ULMCA, PCI was associated with an increased risk of MACE (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.58), death (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.19-2.04), and revascularization (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.5-2.84). The benefit of CABG for MACE and revascularization was confirmed in the analysis limited to RCTs, whereas the benefit for mortality was not. Conclusions: Among patients with distal ULMCA disease, CABG is associated with lower incidence of MACE and revascularization compared with PCI, whereas no dif-ferences in outcomes were observed for ostial/shaft ULMCA disease. (J Thorac Car-diovasc Surg 2023;166:120-32)
引用
收藏
页码:120 / +
页数:24
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Meta-Analysis Comparing the Risk of Myocardial Infarction Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease
    Lee, Pil Hyung
    Park, Hanbit
    Lee, Ji Sung
    Lee, Seung-Whan
    Lee, Cheol Whan
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2019, 124 (06): : 842 - 850
  • [42] Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Hennessy, Conor
    Henry, John
    Parameswaran, Gokul
    Brameier, Devon
    Kharbanda, Rajesh
    Myerson, Saul
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (11)
  • [44] Percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery disease an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
    Gao, Lei
    Liu, Yuqi
    Sun, Zhijun
    Wang, Yabin
    Cao, Feng
    Chen, Yundai
    ONCOTARGET, 2017, 8 (39) : 66449 - 66457
  • [45] PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION OF UNPROTECTED LEFT MAIN CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
    Xie Dongming
    Liao Xiangzhong
    Zhou Aiqing
    HEART, 2011, 97
  • [46] Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease
    Ahmed, Hafeez
    Tai, Javed Majid
    Dhakam, Sajid
    JCPSP-JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN, 2010, 20 (04): : 287 - 288
  • [47] Percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative therapy in nonacute coronary artery disease - A meta-analysis
    Katritsis, DG
    Ioannidis, JPA
    CIRCULATION, 2005, 111 (22) : 2906 - 2912
  • [48] Percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy in stable coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis
    Rangasetty, Umamahesh C.
    Merla, Ramanna
    Lui, Charles Y.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2007, 100 (8A): : 109L - 109L
  • [49] PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION VERSUS MEDICAL THERAPY IN STABLE CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE: A META-ANALYSIS
    Patel, Pawan
    Singh, Mukesh
    Patel, Dipal
    Molnar, Janos
    Arora, Rohit R.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2010, 55 (10)
  • [50] PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION VS CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT IN FEMALE PATIENTS WITH UNPROTECTED LEFT MAIN DISEASE: A META-ANALYSIS
    Bansal, Raahat
    Thandra, Abhishek
    Arouni, Amy
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2021, 77 (18) : 1146 - 1146