Percutaneous coronary invervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with coronary artery disease.

Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched, and randomized controlled trials were included. Outcomes were assessed at maximum available follow-up.

Results: This meta-analysis includes 31 trials with 15,004 patients. As regards death, more patients died after PCI compared with CABG across all types of patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.3; P = .05) as well as in patients with multivessel disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) or diabetes (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1; P < .01). Myocardial infarction occurred as frequently after PCI (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = .28). Repeat revascularization was more common after PCI (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.5-5.8; P < .01), with a progressive decline in ORs from the pre-stent era (OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 5.1-9.7; P < .01), to the bare metal stent era (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.6-5.5; P < .01), and to the drug-eluting stent era (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.4; P < .01). Stroke was more common after CABG (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9; P = .01).

Conclusions: Compared with PCI, CABG had a lower risk of death in multivessel disease or diabetes patients eligible for either intervention, a lower risk of repeat revascularization, but a higher risk of stroke.