Percutaneous coronary invervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting: A meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with coronary artery disease.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched, and randomized controlled trials were included. Outcomes were assessed at maximum available follow-up.ResultsThis meta-analysis includes 31 trials with 15,004 patients. As regards death, more patients died after PCI compared with CABG across all types of patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.3; P = .05) as well as in patients with multivessel disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) or diabetes (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1; P < .01). Myocardial infarction occurred as frequently after PCI (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = .28). Repeat revascularization was more common after PCI (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.5-5.8; P < .01), with a progressive decline in ORs from the pre-stent era (OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 5.1-9.7; P < .01), to the bare metal stent era (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.6-5.5; P < .01), and to the drug-eluting stent era (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.4; P < .01). Stroke was more common after CABG (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9; P = .01).ConclusionsCompared with PCI, CABG had a lower risk of death in multivessel disease or diabetes patients eligible for either intervention, a lower risk of repeat revascularization, but a higher risk of stroke.