Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Nerlekar, Nitesh; Ha, Francis J; Verma, Kunal P; Bennett, Martin R; Cameron, James D; Meredith, Ian T; Brown, Adam J.
Afiliação
  • Nerlekar N; From the Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); MonashHeart, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V.,
  • Ha FJ; From the Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); MonashHeart, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V.,
  • Verma KP; From the Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); MonashHeart, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V.,
  • Bennett MR; From the Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); MonashHeart, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V.,
  • Cameron JD; From the Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); MonashHeart, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V.,
  • Meredith IT; From the Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); MonashHeart, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V.,
  • Brown AJ; From the Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); MonashHeart, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V., J.D.C., I.T.M., A.J.B.); Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia (N.N., F.J.H., K.P.V.,
Circ Cardiovasc Interv ; 9(12)2016 12.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27899408
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Current guidelines suggest that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should be the preferred revascularization method for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. In light of evidence from recent randomized trials, we assessed whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents is as safe and effective as CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease. METHODS AND

RESULTS:

Digital databases and manual searches were performed for randomized trials comparing PCI and CABG for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Among 3887 potentially relevant studies, 5 met inclusion criteria. The primary safety end point was defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included a clinical effectiveness composite, which was defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Summary estimates were obtained using random-effects modeling. In total, 4594 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the primary safety end point between the revascularization strategies (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.17; P=0.73). However, when compared with CABG, PCI was less effective (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58; P<0.001) because of significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.53-2.23; P<0.001). The incidence of all-cause death (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78-1.35; P=0.61), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.88-2.45; P=0.08), and stroke (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.39-1.97; P=0.53) did not differ between PCI and CABG.

CONCLUSIONS:

PCI using drug-eluting stents and CABG are equally safe methods of revascularization for patients at low surgical risk with significant unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. However, CABG is associated with significantly lower rates of repeat revascularization.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave
Buscar no Google
Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ponte de Artéria Coronária / Estenose Coronária / Stents Farmacológicos / Intervenção Coronária Percutânea Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article
Buscar no Google
Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ponte de Artéria Coronária / Estenose Coronária / Stents Farmacológicos / Intervenção Coronária Percutânea Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article