Meta-Analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Narrowing

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) have reported conflicting results. We performed a systematic review up to May 23, 2021, and 1-stage reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to compare outcomes between both groups. The primary outcome was 10-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization at 5 years. We performed individual patient data meta-analysis using published Kaplan-Meier curves to provide individual data points in coordinates and numbers at risk were used to increase the calibration accuracy of the reconstructed data. Shared frailty model or, when proportionality assumptions were not met, a restricted mean survival time model were fitted to compare outcomes between treatment groups. Of 583 articles retrieved, 5 RCTs were included. A total of 4,595 patients from these 5 RCTs were randomly assigned to PCI (n = 2,297) or CABG (n = 2,298). The cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality after PCI and CABG was 12.0% versus 10.6%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.093, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.925 to 1.292; p = 0.296). PCI conferred similar time-to-MI (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.006, 95% CI 0.992 to 1.021, p=0.391) and stroke (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.005, 95% CI 0.998 to 1.013, p = 0.133) at 5 years. Unplanned revascularization was more frequent after PCI than CABG (HR 1.807, 95% CI 1.524 to 2.144, p <0.001) at 5 years. This meta-analysis using reconstructed participant-level time-to-event data showed no statistically significant difference in cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality between PCI versus CABG in the treatment of LMCAD.