Sex-Specific Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:0
|
作者
Zhou, Jennifer Y. [1 ]
Tie, Emilia Nan [1 ]
Liew, Danny [1 ,2 ]
Duffy, Stephen J. [1 ,2 ]
Shaw, James [1 ]
Walton, Antony [1 ]
Chan, William [1 ,3 ]
Stub, Dion [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Alfred Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Western Hlth, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
来源
HEART LUNG AND CIRCULATION | 2022年 / 31卷 / 05期
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Left main coronary artery; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Coronary artery bypass grafting; Sex-specific outcomes; Meta-analysis; 5-YEAR OUTCOMES; ELUTING STENTS; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; SURGERY; MORTALITY; SYNERGY; TAXUS; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.hlc.2021.10.025
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To assess whether outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease differ between men and women. Background Current guidelines recommend either PCI or CABG for patients with unprotected LMCA disease and low-to-intermediate anatomical complexity. However, it is unclear whether these guidelines apply to women, who are underrepresented in clinical trials. Methods An electronic search was performed to identify studies reporting sex-specific outcomes after PCI versus CABG in patients with LMCA disease. Trial level hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by random-effects modelling. Results Eight (8) studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 13,066 patients (24.3% women). In both sexes, there was no difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke (HR in women: 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.40; HR in men: 1.04, 95% CI 0.92-1.17). However, both sexes were more likely to require repeat revascularisation after PCI. There was no interaction between sex and treatment effect for the primary composite endpoint nor for the individual outcomes of death, stroke and repeat revascularisation. However, in women the risk of myocardial infarction was higher after PCI compared with CABG (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06-3.18), with a trend toward the opposite in men (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54-1.13; p-interaction=0.01). Conclusion Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG have a comparable risk of the composite outcome of death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients undergoing revascularisation for LMCA disease, with no significant interaction between sex and treatment effect.
引用
收藏
页码:658 / 665
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Long-term follow-up of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Garg, Aakash
    Rout, Amit
    Raheja, Hitesh
    Hakeem, Hisham
    Sharma, Samin
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2021, 98 (03) : 427 - 433
  • [22] Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Hennessy, C.
    Henry, J. A.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 108 : 249 - 249
  • [23] Percutaneous intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Xin-Lin
    Zhu, Qing-Qing
    Yang, Jing-Jing
    Chen, Yu-Han
    Li, Yang
    Zhu, Su-Hui
    Xie, Jun
    Wang, Lian
    Kang, Li-Na
    Xu, Biao
    BMC MEDICINE, 2017, 15
  • [24] Percutaneous intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Xin-Lin Zhang
    Qing-Qing Zhu
    Jing-Jing Yang
    Yu-Han Chen
    Yang Li
    Su-Hui Zhu
    Jun Xie
    Lian Wang
    Li-Na Kang
    Biao Xu
    BMC Medicine, 15
  • [25] Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Revascularization of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease
    Park, Sangwoo
    Park, Seung-Jung
    Park, Duk-Woo
    KOREAN CIRCULATION JOURNAL, 2023, 53 (03) : 113 - 133
  • [26] 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
  • [27] Determinants of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Bhaskaran, Premjithlal
    Sanal, T. S.
    Bhaskaran, India Premjithlal
    Anastasiou, Nikolaos
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2022, 16 (05) : PE1 - PE5
  • [28] Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting: A meta-analysis of patients with left main coronary artery disease
    Spinthakis, Nikolaos
    Farag, Mohamed
    Gorog, Diana A.
    Prasad, Abhiram
    Mahmood, Hamid
    Gue, Ying
    Wellsted, David
    Nabhan, Ashraf
    Srinivasan, Manivannan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2017, 249 : 101 - 106
  • [29] Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of patients with left main coronary artery disease
    Spinthakis, N.
    Farag, M.
    Gorog, D. A.
    Mahmood, H.
    Prasad, A.
    Srinivasan, M.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2017, 38 : 271 - 271
  • [30] COMPARISON OF PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION VERSUS CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFTING IN OLDER ADULTS WITH UNPROTECTED LEFT MAIN CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE: A META-ANALYSIS AND METAREGRESSION
    Khan, Mahin R.
    Kayani, Waleed T.
    Ahmad, Waqas
    Siddiqui, Sadar
    Shahzad, Saima A.
    Mumtaz, Shazhad A.
    Manan, Malalai
    Hira, Ravi S.
    Hamzeh, Ihab
    Jneid, Hani
    Virani, Salim S.
    Kleiman, Neal
    Alam, Mahboob
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2019, 73 (09) : 2133 - 2133