Document Type
Article
Publication Date
7-26-2020
Abstract
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;
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.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Ullah, Waqas; Sattar, Yasar; Ullah, Irfan; Susheela, Ammu; Mukhtar, Maryam; Alraies, M Chadi; Mamas, Mamas A; and Fischman, D L, "Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Graft for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" (2020). Abington Jefferson Health Papers. Paper 34.
https://jdc.jefferson.edu/abingtonfp/34
PubMed ID
32774183
Language
English
Comments
This article is the author’s final published version in Journal of Interventional Cardiology, Volume 2020, July 2020, Article number 4081642.
The published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4081642. Copyright © Waqas Ullah et al.