Key result
PCI is linked to similar four-year major event rates as CABG.
Why the study?
The study was aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery disease treatment with contemporary PCI or CABG in a real-world population.
Does contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduce the composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease?
Cohort (n=558)
Does contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduce the composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 15.5% vs 17.1%
p-value: p=0.585
In a real-world population with unprotected left main coronary artery disease, PCI and CABG showed similar rates of death, MI, or stroke at 4 years, though PCI had higher rates of repeat revascularization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Similar outcomes in this Level 5 cohort should not change practice; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Scudiero et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) (n=558). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was evaluated on Composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke (p=0.585). Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG resulted in similar rates of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke up to 4 years (15.5% vs. 17.1%; p=0.585).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: