Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Background: Recent trials comparing PCI with CABG for unprotected left main disease yielded discrepant evidence. Objectives: To perform an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Methods: Randomized trials comparing PCI versus CABG for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease were included. Summary estimates risk ratios (RRs) were performed with a DerSimonian and Laird model at short-term, intermediate and long-term follow-up periods (i.e., 30-days, 1-year, and >1-year). Outcomes evaluated were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization and stent thrombosis or symptomatic graft occlusion. Results: Six trials with 4,700 patients and a mean SYNTAX score of 23 were included. At short-term follow-up, the risk of MACCE was lower with PCI (RR 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.76) driven by the lower risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99), and stroke (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16-0.90). The risk of MACCE was similar at the intermediate follow-up (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97-1.51). At long-term follow-up, PCI was associated with a higher risk of MACCE (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.41), due to a higher risk of revascularization (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.34-1.94), while the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were similar. Conclusions: In patients with unprotected left main coronary disease and low to intermediate SYNTAX score, PCI might be an acceptable alternative to CABG.