Abstract

This study sought to systematically compare the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with single-vessel disease of the proximal left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery.It is uncertain whether percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery provides better clinical outcomes among patients with single-vessel disease of the proximal LAD.We searched relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from 1966 to 2006) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes for patients with single-vessel proximal LAD assigned to either PCI or CABG.We identified 9 randomized controlled trials that enrolled a total of 1,210 patients (633 received PCI and 577 received CABG). There were no differences in survival at 30 days, 1 year, or 5 years, nor were there differences in the rates of procedural strokes or myocardial infarctions, whereas the rate of repeat revascularization was significantly less after CABG than after PCI (at 1 year: 7.3% vs. 19.5%; at 5 years: 7.3% vs. 33.5%). Angina relief was significantly greater after CABG than after PCI (at 1 year: 95.5% vs. 84.6%; at 5 years: 84.2% vs. 75.6%). Patients undergoing CABG spent 3.2 more days in the hospital than those receiving PCI (95% confidence interval: 2.3 to 4.1 days, p < 0.0001), required more transfusions, and were more likely to have arrhythmias immediately post-procedure.In patients with single-vessel, proximal LAD disease, survival was similar in CABG-assigned and PCI-assigned patients; CABG was significantly more effective in relieving angina and led to fewer repeat revascularizations.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.07.001

View details for Web of Science ID 000207586300004

View details for PubMedID 19463349