Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease in patients with prior cerebrovascular disease: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

IF 1.9 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Muhammad Hamza Shuja , Firzah Shakil , Syed Hassaan Ali , Qazi Shurjeel Uddin , Ayesha Noman , Javed Iqbal , Muhammad Ahmed , Faiza Sajid , Haya Waseem Ansari , Syed Ahmed Farhan , Huzaifa Ul Haq Ansari , Syed Husain Farhan , Muhammad Moiz Nasir , Sana Qazi , Muhammad Majid
{"title":"Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease in patients with prior cerebrovascular disease: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression","authors":"Muhammad Hamza Shuja ,&nbsp;Firzah Shakil ,&nbsp;Syed Hassaan Ali ,&nbsp;Qazi Shurjeel Uddin ,&nbsp;Ayesha Noman ,&nbsp;Javed Iqbal ,&nbsp;Muhammad Ahmed ,&nbsp;Faiza Sajid ,&nbsp;Haya Waseem Ansari ,&nbsp;Syed Ahmed Farhan ,&nbsp;Huzaifa Ul Haq Ansari ,&nbsp;Syed Husain Farhan ,&nbsp;Muhammad Moiz Nasir ,&nbsp;Sana Qazi ,&nbsp;Muhammad Majid","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcrp.2025.200370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Previous studies suggest similar cardiovascular (CV) benefits for either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). However, limited data exist on the influence of prior cerebrovascular disease (CEVD). Thus, we aim to compare the CV outcomes in patients with LMCAD and prior CEVD, undergoing either PCI or CABG.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A comprehensive search from (January 2000 to August 2024) identified three relevant studies. Outcomes analyzed included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), and risk of stroke in patients undergoing either PCI or CABG for LMCAD. Data analysis employed a random effects model and presented hazard ratios (HR) along with their 95 % confidence intervals (CI).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Three studies involving 760 patients (361 PCI, 399 CABG) were included. PCI was associated with a significantly higher risk of MACCE (HR = 2.56; 95 % CI = 1.23–5.37; p = 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 86 %) and MI (HR = 2.97; 95 % CI = 1.72–5.13; p &lt; 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %) compared to CABG. No significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality (HR = 1.35; 95 % CI = 0.92–1.98; p = 0.12; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %) or recurrent stroke (HR = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.40–1.70; p = 0.60; I<sup>2</sup> = 1 %). The risk of repeat revascularization was higher in PCI, though not statistically significant (HR = 3.44; 95 % CI = 0.50–23.60; p = 0.21; I<sup>2</sup> = 70 %).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>PCI significantly elevates the risk of MACCE and MI in patients with LMCAD and prior CEVD compared to CABG. However, risks of all-cause mortality, repeat stroke, and revascularization were non-significant. Comorbidities may drive the elevated risk, underscoring the need for tailored strategies in this population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":29726,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","volume":"24 ","pages":"Article 200370"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11772956/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277248752500008X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Previous studies suggest similar cardiovascular (CV) benefits for either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). However, limited data exist on the influence of prior cerebrovascular disease (CEVD). Thus, we aim to compare the CV outcomes in patients with LMCAD and prior CEVD, undergoing either PCI or CABG.

Methods

A comprehensive search from (January 2000 to August 2024) identified three relevant studies. Outcomes analyzed included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), and risk of stroke in patients undergoing either PCI or CABG for LMCAD. Data analysis employed a random effects model and presented hazard ratios (HR) along with their 95 % confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Three studies involving 760 patients (361 PCI, 399 CABG) were included. PCI was associated with a significantly higher risk of MACCE (HR = 2.56; 95 % CI = 1.23–5.37; p = 0.01; I2 = 86 %) and MI (HR = 2.97; 95 % CI = 1.72–5.13; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0 %) compared to CABG. No significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality (HR = 1.35; 95 % CI = 0.92–1.98; p = 0.12; I2 = 0 %) or recurrent stroke (HR = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.40–1.70; p = 0.60; I2 = 1 %). The risk of repeat revascularization was higher in PCI, though not statistically significant (HR = 3.44; 95 % CI = 0.50–23.60; p = 0.21; I2 = 70 %).

Conclusion

PCI significantly elevates the risk of MACCE and MI in patients with LMCAD and prior CEVD compared to CABG. However, risks of all-cause mortality, repeat stroke, and revascularization were non-significant. Comorbidities may drive the elevated risk, underscoring the need for tailored strategies in this population.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
72 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信