Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Acute Coronary Syndromes | JAMA Cardiology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Fajadet  J, Chieffo  A.  Current management of left main coronary artery disease.  Eur Heart J. 2012;33(1):36b-50b.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Lee  PH, Ahn  JM, Chang  M,  et al.  Left main coronary artery disease: secular trends in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(11):1233-1246.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Bangalore  S, Guo  Y, Samadashvili  Z, Blecker  S, Xu  J, Hannan  EL.  Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease.  N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1213-1222.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Chieffo  A, Meliga  E, Latib  A,  et al.  Drug-eluting stent for left main coronary artery disease: the DELTA registry: a multicenter registry evaluating percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main treatment.  JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(7):718-727.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Windecker  S, Kolh  P, Alfonso  F,  et al; Authors/Task Force Members.  ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization.  Eur Heart J. 2014;35(37):2541-2619.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Levine  GN, Bates  ER, Blankenship  JC,  et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.  Circulation. 2011;124(23):e574-e651.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Stone  GW, Sabik  JF, Serruys  PW,  et al; EXCEL Trial Investigators.  Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease.  N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2223-2235.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Mäkikallio  T, Holm  NR, Lindsay  M,  et al; NOBLE Study Investigators.  Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.  Lancet. 2016;388(10061):2743-2752.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Capodanno  D, Stone  GW, Morice  MC, Bass  TA, Tamburino  C.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical data.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(14):1426-1432.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Gargiulo  G, Tamburino  C, Capodanno  D.  Five-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with left main coronary artery disease: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials and adjusted observational studies.  Int J Cardiol. 2015;195:79-81.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Athappan  G, Patvardhan  E, Tuzcu  ME, Ellis  S, Whitlow  P, Kapadia  SR.  Left main coronary artery stenosis: a meta-analysis of drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting.  JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(12):1219-1230.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Nerlekar  N, Ha  FJ, Verma  KP,  et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.  Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(12):e004729.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Liberati  A, Altman  DG, Tetzlaff  J,  et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.  BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Cochrane Training. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0. http://www.handbook.cochrane.org. Updated March 2011. Accessed May 15, 2017.
15.
Kappetein  AP, Feldman  TE, Mack  MJ,  et al.  Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial.  Eur Heart J. 2011;32(17):2125-2134.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Borenstein  M, Hedges  LV, Higgins  JPT, Rothstein  HR.  Introduction to Meta–analysis. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.Crossref
17.
DerSimonian  R, Laird  N.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.  Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Schriger  DL, Altman  DG, Vetter  JA, Heafner  T, Moher  D.  Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice.  Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(2):421-429.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Higgins  JP, Thompson  SG, Deeks  JJ, Altman  DG.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.  BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Sianos  G, Morel  MA, Kappetein  AP,  et al.  The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease.  EuroIntervention. 2005;1(2):219-227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Park  SJ, Kim  YH, Park  DW,  et al.  Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease.  N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1718-1727.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Guyot  P, Ades  AE, Ouwens  MJ, Welton  NJ.  Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Rondeau  V, Michiels  S, Liquet  B, Pignon  JP.  Investigating trial and treatment heterogeneity in an individual patient data meta-analysis of survival data by means of the penalized maximum likelihood approach.  Stat Med. 2008;27(11):1894-1910.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Viechtbauer  W, Cheung  MW.  Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis.  Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):112-125.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Byrne  RA, Serruys  PW, Baumbach  A,  et al.  Report of a European Society of Cardiology–European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe: executive summary.  Eur Heart J. 2015;36(38):2608-2620.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Mohr  FW, Morice  MC, Kappetein  AP,  et al.  Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial.  Lancet. 2013;381(9867):629-638.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Schünemann  H, Brozek  J, Guyatt  G, Oxman  A. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html. Updated October 2013. Accessed May 15, 2017.
28.
Serruys  PW, Morice  MC, Kappetein  AP,  et al; SYNTAX Investigators.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease.  N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961-972.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Morice  MC, Serruys  PW, Kappetein  AP,  et al.  Outcomes in patients with de novo left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using paclitaxel-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass graft treatment in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial.  Circulation. 2010;121(24):2645-2653.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Morice  MC, Serruys  PW, Kappetein  AP,  et al.  Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery trial.  Circulation. 2014;129(23):2388-2394.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Ahn  JM, Roh  JH, Kim  YH,  et al.  Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5-year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(20):2198-2206.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Head  SJ, Davierwala  PM, Serruys  PW,  et al.  Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial.  Eur Heart J. 2014;35(40):2821-2830.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Farkouh  ME, Domanski  M, Sleeper  LA,  et al; FREEDOM Trial Investigators.  Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes.  N Engl J Med. 2012;367(25):2375-2384.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Park  SJ, Ahn  JM, Kim  YH,  et al; BEST Trial Investigators.  Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease.  N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1204-1212.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Giacoppo  D, Gargiulo  G, Aruta  P, Capranzano  P, Tamburino  C, Capodanno  D.  Treatment strategies for coronary in-stent restenosis: systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis of 24 randomised trials and 4880 patients.  BMJ. 2015;351:h5392.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Stone  GW, Rizvi  A, Newman  W,  et al; SPIRIT IV Investigators.  Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362(18):1663-1674.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Stefanini  GG, Kalesan  B, Serruys  PW,  et al.  Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial.  Lancet. 2011;378(9807):1940-1948.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Yadav  M, Palmerini  T, Caixeta  A,  et al.  Prediction of coronary risk by SYNTAX and derived scores: Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(14):1219-1230.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Capodanno  D, Giacoppo  D, Dipasqua  F,  et al.  Usefulness of the logistic clinical SYNTAX score for predicting 1-year mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main coronary artery.  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(4):E446-E452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Capodanno  D, Gargiulo  G, Buccheri  S,  et al; DELTA Investigators.  Computing methods for composite clinical endpoints in unprotected left main coronary artery revascularization: a post hoc analysis of the DELTA registry.  JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(22):2280-2288.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Lassen  JF, Holm  NR, Banning  A,  et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club.  EuroIntervention. 2016;12(1):38-46.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Park  SJ, Kim  YH, Park  DW,  et al; MAIN-COMPARE Investigators.  Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term mortality in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.  Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(3):167-177.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
October 2017

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author Affiliations
  • 1Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
  • 2German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany
JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(10):1079-1088. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2895
Key Points

Question  Does percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stenting and coronary artery bypass grafting provide similar long-term safety and efficacy in patients presenting with significant coronary artery disease involving the left main coronary artery?

Findings  In this systematic review and meta-analysis including 4394 patients, the 2 revascularization techniques provided similar long-term outcomes in terms of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization.

Meaning  Although patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting benefit from a lower risk of repeat revascularization, if a patient wishes to avoid the morbidity associated with surgical revascularization, percutaneous coronary intervention is a safe and effective alternative.

Abstract

Importance  In patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the standard therapy for several decades. However, some studies suggest that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative.

Objective  To compare the long-term safety of PCI with drug-eluting stent vs CABG in patients with LMCA stenosis.

Data Sources  PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and ScienceDirect databases were searched from December 18, 2001, to February 1, 2017. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trial, patients with LMCA stenosis, PCI vs CABG, exclusive use of drug-eluting stents, and clinical follow-up of 3 or more years.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  Trial-level hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled by fixed-effect and random-effects models with inverse variance weighting. Time-to-event individual patient data for the primary end point were reconstructed. Sensitivity analyses according to drug-eluting stent generation and coronary artery disease complexity were performed.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at long-term follow-up. Secondary end points included repeat revascularization and a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at long-term follow-up.

Results  A total of 4 randomized clinical trials were pooled; 4394 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 3371 (76.7%) were men; pooled mean age was 65.4 years. According to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, evidence quality with respect to the primary composite end point was high. Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG were associated with a comparable risk of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke both by fixed-effect (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.24; P = .48) and random-effects (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.32; P = .60) analysis. Sensitivity analyses according to low to intermediate Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (random-effects: HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.74-1.41; P = .89) and drug-eluting stent generation (first generation: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.20; P = .49; second generation: HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.73; P = .36) were consistent. Kaplan-Meier curve reconstruction did not show significant variations over time between the techniques, with a 5-year incidence of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke of 18.3% (319 events) in patients treated with PCI and 16.9% (292 events) in patients treated with CABG. However, repeat revascularization after PCI was increased (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.42-2.05; P < .001). Other individual secondary end points did not differ significantly between groups. Finally, pooled estimates of trials with LMCA stenosis tended overall to differ significantly from those of trials with multivessel coronary artery disease without left main LMCA stenosis.

Conclusions and Relevance  Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG show comparable safety in patients with LMCA stenosis and low to intermediate–complexity coronary artery disease. However, repeat revascularization is more common after PCI.

×