Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft among Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: There is an absence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing types of revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in the presence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Our aim was to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery graft bypass (CABG) among patients with CAD and LVSD. Methods The PubMed online database (from 1976 to November, 2014) and EMbase (from 1974 to November, 2014) were searched. Studies comparing the outcomes of PCI versus CABG among patients with left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <50%) were included. Random- and fixed-effect models were used depending on between-study heterogeneity. Results Due to absence of RCTs on this topic, twelve observational studies including 5,494 patients were included. PCI was associated with a lower risk of short-term mortality (Risk ratio [RR], 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-1.00) but a higher risk of long-term mortality (RR, 1.21, 95%CI, 1.05-1.40) and repeat revascularization (RR, 4.18, 95%CI, 1.92-9.12) compared with CABG. No significant difference in composite outcomes (RR, 1.26, 95%CI, 0.92-1.73), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.17-2.41) and cerebrovascular accident ((RR, 0.61, 95%CI, 0.18-2.01) was observed between PCI vs. CABG. Conclusions Due to the absence of any RCTs on this topic, a meta-analysis of observational studies was performed. It suggested PCI was associated with a better short-term prognosis but an increased risk of long-term mortality compared with CABG. Further well-designed RCT’s are needed to verify this conclusion