Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the long-term incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and death in patients randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treatment of isolated left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery disease. METHODS: We systematically identified all randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with stenting to CABG with a left internal mammary artery (LIMA) graft in patients with isolated LAD disease who had at least 4 years of follow-up. The primary outcome of interest was MI. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS: Four trials were included in the current analysis, with a total of 573 patients randomized to CABG with a LIMA (n = 285) vs PCI (n = 288) and followed for 4 to 10 years. At latest follow-up (weighted mean 8.3 years), there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of MI between CABG and PCI (relative risk [RR], 1.33; 95% CI, 0.62-2.83; P = .46), nor was there a statistically significant difference in mortality between the groups (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70-1.65; P = .84). There was a significantly lower risk of TVR after CABG compared with PCI (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.46; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis suggests that there is insufficient evidence that CABG with a LIMA confers protection against MI or death compared to PCI with a stent for isolated LAD disease. CABG was, however, associated with reduced rates of TVR.