Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness of First-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Disease

It is controversial whether drug-eluting stents (DESs) are safe and effective when generalized to “real-world” patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. This meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of DESs to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in real-world patients with unprotected left main coronary artery. We identified comparative, observational, DES versus CABG studies published from January 2000 through May 2012. All studies included ≥100 patients and reported end points with follow-ups ≥6 months. We included adjusted risk estimates and, when no adjusted estimate was available, crude estimates. Data were grouped according to follow-up times of ≤2, ≤3, and >3 years. We included data from 25 observational studies representing 7,230 patients. No differences were detected between CABG and DES in overall mortality (≤2 years, adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 1.28; ≤3 years, adjusted RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.66; >3 years, adjusted RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.17) or in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (≤2 years, adjusted RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.73; ≤3 years, adjusted RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.15; >3 years, adjusted RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.73). Compared to DESs, CABG showed a significant decrease in target vessel revascularization (≤2 years, adjusted RR 3.72, 95% CI 2.50 to 5.52; ≤3 years, adjusted RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.54 to 6.04; >3 years, adjusted RR 3.45, 95% CI 2.14 to 5.57). In conclusion, DESs and CABG were not significantly different in short- and long-term rates of death or major cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events, but DESs showed a higher risk of target vessel revascularization compared to CABG.