Abstract
Left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) has always been the standard revascularization strategy for this group of patients. However, with the recent developments in stents design and medical therapy over the past decade, several trials have been designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as an alternative to CABG surgery in patients with LMCA disease. Recently, the results of two major trials, EXCEL and NOBLE, comparing CABG versus PCI in this patient population have been released. In fact, the results of both trials might appear contradictory at first glance. While the EXCEL trial showed that PCI was non-inferior to CABG surgery, the NOBLE trial suggested that CABG surgery is a better option. In the following review, we will discuss some of the similarities and contrasts between these two trials and conclude with lessons to be learned to our daily practice.