Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Surgery in Left Main Stenosis–A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

Objective To investigate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. Methods Six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were reviewed by searching PubMed/Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Estimates were pooled according to random effects model. Binary outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes were reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results 3794 patients were randomised into PCI and CABG arms. Mean age of the total population was 64.7 years, 74.4% were male and mean Logistic EURO score (LES) was 2.9. When compared with CABG, patients treated with PCI had reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 30 days: (RR: 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41–0.75; p 2 =0) but similar risk at 1year (RR: 1.15; 95% CI, 0.92–1.45; p=0.22; I 2 =0). Five years MACE rates favoured CABG (RR: 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13–1.53; p 2 =0) driven by a higher rate of target vessel revascularisation (TVR) (RR: 1.71; 95%CI, 1.38–2.12; p 2 =0) and myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 1.97; 95%CI, 1.28–3.04; p 2 =22). Percutaneous coronary intervention was comparatively a safer procedure with lower rates of periprocedural adverse events including MI, stroke, bleeding events and need for blood transfusions. Conclusion Percutaneous coronary intervention reduced MACE at 30days with comparable MACE at 1year. However, CABG was a more effective modality when considering mid- to long-term outcomes. Percutaneous coronary intervention is a safer procedure with regards to periprocedural adverse events.