Why the study?
Severe left main coronary artery disease poses a major treatment challenge in Latin America, where both PCI and CABG are used.
Does percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improve outcomes in patients with severe left main coronary artery disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=4,612)
Yes
Does percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improve outcomes in patients with severe left main coronary artery disease?
Hazard Ratio: 1.07 (95% CI 0.83–1.37)
Absolute Event Rate: 6.3% vs 5.9%
This Latin American clinical practice guideline conditionally recommends either PCI or CABG for severe left main coronary artery disease, emphasizing shared decision-making due to low certainty evidence.
Supports shared decision-making for PCI or CABG in left main disease; extends RCT data into conditional guideline recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Severe left main coronary artery disease (LMD) poses a major treatment challenge in Latin America, where both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are used. METHODS: This guideline was developed de novo using the GRADE approach. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed evidence from a systematic review of randomized trials comparing PCI and CABG, incorporating a comprehensive literature search of patient values and preferences and outcome utilities. Thresholds were assigned for each clinical outcome, from small to large effect. RESULTS: Five randomized trials enrolling 4612 patients were included. At 30 days, PCI resulted in a large reduction in major bleeding and a small reduction in strokes. At 5 years, PCI was associated with a small to moderate increase of spontaneous myocardial infarction and a moderate to large increase in repeat revascularization. No important differences in short- or long-term mortality were observed between PCI and CABG. The overall certainty of evidence was rated low. There was a notable variability in patient values and a close call on the balance of effects. CONCLUSIONS: For patients in Latin America with severe left main coronary artery disease, the guideline panel suggests either PCI or CABG. This is a conditional recommendation, based on low certainty in the evidence (⨁⨁◯◯). It applies when both procedures are clinically and anatomically appropriate and can be performed at centers meeting acceptable standards. The decision should be made through a shared decision-making process involving the patient and the multidisciplinary care team.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lamelas et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Severe left main coronary artery disease (n=4,612). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was evaluated on Cardiovascular mortality at 5 years (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.83-1.37). PCI compared to CABG in patients with severe left main coronary artery disease resulted in no significant difference in 5-year cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.07), but increased spontaneous myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: