title: A meta-analysis of 3,773 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study sought to understand the total weight of evidence regarding outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Following a diagnosis of significant ULMCA stenosis in an individual that is a candidate for surgery, CABG is recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, whereas PCI is not recommended (Class III).
  
  
  METHODS
  Databases were searched for clinical studies that reported outcomes after PCI and CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis. Ten studies were identified that included a total of 3,773 patients.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Meta-analysis showed that death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events) were similar in the PCI- and CABG-treated patients at 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84 [95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 1.22]), 2 years (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 0.81 to 1.94]), and 3 years (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 0.68 to 1.98]). Target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group at 1 year (OR: 4.36 [95% CI: 2.60 to 7.32]), 2 years (OR: 4.20 [95% CI: 2.21 to 7.97]), and 3 years (OR: 3.30 [95% CI: 0.96 to 11.33]). There was no difference in mortality in PCI- versus CABG-treated patients at 1 year (OR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.70 to 1.41]), 2 years (OR: 1.27 [95% CI: 0.83 to 1.94]), and 3 years (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.66 to 1.86]).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our analysis reveals no difference in mortality or major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, for up to 3 years, between PCI and CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis. However, PCI patients had a significantly higher risk of target vessel revascularization. In selected patients with ULMCA stenosis, PCI is emerging as an acceptable option.
authors.affiliation: Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California 90048, USA.
authors.forename: Hursh
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Naik
authors.forename: Anthony J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: White
authors.forename: Tarun
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Chakravarty
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Forrester
authors.forename: Gregory
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Fontana
authors.forename: Saibal
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kar
authors.forename: Prediman K
authors.initials: PK
authors.lastname: Shah
authors.forename: Robert E
authors.initials: RE
authors.lastname: Weiss
authors.forename: Raj
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Makkar
mesh_terms: D000572:American Heart Association; D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000401:mortality; D002318:Cardiovascular Diseases / Q000209:etiology / Q000401:mortality; D001026:Coronary Artery Bypass / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000401:mortality; D023921:Coronary Stenosis / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery / Q000628:therapy*; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D053208:Kaplan-Meier Estimate; D016017:Odds Ratio; D018579:Patient Selection; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D015607:Stents; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States