Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Graft for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for stable left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) remains controversial.

Methods: Digital databases were searched to compare the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its components. A random effect model was used to compute an unadjusted odds ratio (OR).

Results: A total of 43 studies (37 observational and 6 RCTs) consisting of 29,187 patients (PCI 13,709 and CABG 15,478) were identified. The 30-day rate of MACCE (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76;  = 0.0002) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.91;  = 0.02) was significantly lower in the PCI group. There was no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) ( = 0.17) and revascularization ( = 0.12). At 5 years, CABG was favored due to a significantly lower rate of MACCE (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.18-2.36;  = <0.04), MI (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.35-2.06;  = <0.00001), and revascularization (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.18-3.60;  = <0.00001), respectively. PCI was associated with a lower overall rate of a stroke, while the risk of all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups at 1- ( = 0.75), 5- ( = 0.72), and 10-years ( = 0.20). The Kaplan-Meier curve reconstruction revealed substantial variations over time; the 5-year incidence of MACCE was 38% with CABG, significantly lower than 45% with PCI ( = <0.00001).

Conclusion: PCI might offer early safety advantages, while CABG provides greater durability in terms of lower long-term risk of ischemic events. There appears to be an equivalent risk for all-cause mortality.