Impact of time factor and patient characteristics on the efficacy of PCI vs CABG for left main coronary disease: A meta-analysis.

Background: The impact of time factor and patient characteristics on the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease is unclear.

Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for related trials. Two outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis stratified by follow-up duration and 7 factors of interest related to patient characteristics. Random-effects meta-regression was performed to calculate P values for trend and those for subgroup differences.

Results: We included 11 articles from 5 trials. Compared with CABG, PCI increased MACCE at the end of 3-year (hazard ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.40, I2 = 0) and 5-year (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.20-1.48, I2 = 0) follow-up, but did not increase all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The logarithm of HR of PCI vs CABG for MACCE increased as follow-up duration increased (β = 0.057, P = .025). PCI vs CABG consistently increased 5-year MACCE across various subgroups defined by 7 factors of interest (Psubgroup ranged from .156 to .830).

Conclusions: The long-term benefit of CABG vs PCI on MACCE in patients with left main coronary disease is consistent across patients with different clinical characteristics. The relative benefit of CABG on MACCE is driven by that of CABG on unplanned revascularization, and becomes greater as time goes on.