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 CitationUllah, 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.