Cargando…

Unprotected left main revascularization: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of unprotected left main (UPLM) with either PCI or CABG remains uncertain. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the comparative safety and efficacy of PCI versus CABG in patients with UPLM disease. METHODS: Search of BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, mRCT, PubMed,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Testa, Luca, Latib, Azeem, Bollati, Mario, Antonio Montone, Rocco, Colombo, Antonio, Crea, Filippo, Bedogni, Francesco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5489169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28658308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179060
_version_ 1783246757348507648
author Testa, Luca
Latib, Azeem
Bollati, Mario
Antonio Montone, Rocco
Colombo, Antonio
Crea, Filippo
Bedogni, Francesco
author_facet Testa, Luca
Latib, Azeem
Bollati, Mario
Antonio Montone, Rocco
Colombo, Antonio
Crea, Filippo
Bedogni, Francesco
author_sort Testa, Luca
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of unprotected left main (UPLM) with either PCI or CABG remains uncertain. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the comparative safety and efficacy of PCI versus CABG in patients with UPLM disease. METHODS: Search of BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, mRCT, PubMed, major cardiological congresses proceedings and references cross-check (updated November 2016). Outcomes were the rate of MACE [all cause death, MI, stroke], the rates of the individual components of MACE and the rate of target vessel revascularisation (TVR). RESULTS: We identified 6 Randomised Controlled Trials totalling 4717 patients allocated to PCI or CABG. At 1 year follow up, PCI and CABG were substantially equivalent with respect to the rates of MACE [PCI 8.5% vs CABG 8.9%, OR 1.02,(0.76–1.36), p = 0.9], death [PCI 5.4% vs CABG 6.6%, OR 0.81,(0.63–1.03),p = 0.08] and MI [PCI 3.4% vs CABG 4.3%, OR 0.80(0.59–1.07), p = 0.14]. Notably, PCI was associated with a significantly lower rate of stroke [PCI 0.6% vs CABG 1.8%, OR 0.36,(0.17–0.79), p = 0.01] and with a significantly higher rate of TVR [PCI 8.7% vs CABG 4.5%, OR 2.00(1.46–2.75), p<0.01]. At a median follow up of 5years, the rates of MACE were similar between the two strategies: PCI 14.6% vs CABG 13.8%, OR 1.02(0.76–1.38), p = 0.89. Likewise, the rates of death [PCI 8% and CABG 7.7%, OR 1(0.77–1.31), P = 0.9], MI [PCI 6.1% vs CABG 5%, OR 1.41(0.85–2.34), P = 0.19, I(2) 59%], and stroke [PCI 2% vs CABG 2.2%, OR 0.85(0.42–1.81), p = 0.65,] were similar while PCI was associated with a significantly higher rate of TVR [14.5% vs CABG 8.9%, OR 1.73(1.41–2.13), p<0.01]. CONCLUSION: In patients with UPLM disease, PCI and CABG are associated with similar rates of MACE and mortality at 1 year as well as after 5 years. Differences can be detected for individual end points at both short and long term FU.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5489169
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54891692017-07-11 Unprotected left main revascularization: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Testa, Luca Latib, Azeem Bollati, Mario Antonio Montone, Rocco Colombo, Antonio Crea, Filippo Bedogni, Francesco PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of unprotected left main (UPLM) with either PCI or CABG remains uncertain. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the comparative safety and efficacy of PCI versus CABG in patients with UPLM disease. METHODS: Search of BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, mRCT, PubMed, major cardiological congresses proceedings and references cross-check (updated November 2016). Outcomes were the rate of MACE [all cause death, MI, stroke], the rates of the individual components of MACE and the rate of target vessel revascularisation (TVR). RESULTS: We identified 6 Randomised Controlled Trials totalling 4717 patients allocated to PCI or CABG. At 1 year follow up, PCI and CABG were substantially equivalent with respect to the rates of MACE [PCI 8.5% vs CABG 8.9%, OR 1.02,(0.76–1.36), p = 0.9], death [PCI 5.4% vs CABG 6.6%, OR 0.81,(0.63–1.03),p = 0.08] and MI [PCI 3.4% vs CABG 4.3%, OR 0.80(0.59–1.07), p = 0.14]. Notably, PCI was associated with a significantly lower rate of stroke [PCI 0.6% vs CABG 1.8%, OR 0.36,(0.17–0.79), p = 0.01] and with a significantly higher rate of TVR [PCI 8.7% vs CABG 4.5%, OR 2.00(1.46–2.75), p<0.01]. At a median follow up of 5years, the rates of MACE were similar between the two strategies: PCI 14.6% vs CABG 13.8%, OR 1.02(0.76–1.38), p = 0.89. Likewise, the rates of death [PCI 8% and CABG 7.7%, OR 1(0.77–1.31), P = 0.9], MI [PCI 6.1% vs CABG 5%, OR 1.41(0.85–2.34), P = 0.19, I(2) 59%], and stroke [PCI 2% vs CABG 2.2%, OR 0.85(0.42–1.81), p = 0.65,] were similar while PCI was associated with a significantly higher rate of TVR [14.5% vs CABG 8.9%, OR 1.73(1.41–2.13), p<0.01]. CONCLUSION: In patients with UPLM disease, PCI and CABG are associated with similar rates of MACE and mortality at 1 year as well as after 5 years. Differences can be detected for individual end points at both short and long term FU. Public Library of Science 2017-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5489169/ /pubmed/28658308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179060 Text en © 2017 Testa et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Testa, Luca
Latib, Azeem
Bollati, Mario
Antonio Montone, Rocco
Colombo, Antonio
Crea, Filippo
Bedogni, Francesco
Unprotected left main revascularization: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title Unprotected left main revascularization: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_full Unprotected left main revascularization: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_fullStr Unprotected left main revascularization: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Unprotected left main revascularization: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_short Unprotected left main revascularization: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_sort unprotected left main revascularization: percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass. an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5489169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28658308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179060
work_keys_str_mv AT testaluca unprotectedleftmainrevascularizationpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT latibazeem unprotectedleftmainrevascularizationpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT bollatimario unprotectedleftmainrevascularizationpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT antoniomontonerocco unprotectedleftmainrevascularizationpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT colomboantonio unprotectedleftmainrevascularizationpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT creafilippo unprotectedleftmainrevascularizationpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT bedognifrancesco unprotectedleftmainrevascularizationpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionversuscoronaryarterybypassanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials