PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Francesco Formica
AU  - Daniel Hernandez-Vaquero
AU  - Domenico Tuttolomondo
AU  - Alan Gallingani
AU  - Gurmeet Singh
AU  - Claudia Pattuzzi
AU  - Giampaolo Niccoli
AU  - Roberto Lorusso
AU  - Francesco Nicolini
TI  - Surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel or left main disease; what happens beyond five years? A systematic review and study level meta-analysis of randomized trials
AID  - 10.1101/2023.03.17.23287425
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.03.17.23287425
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/18/2023.03.17.23287425.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/18/2023.03.17.23287425.full
AB  - Meta-analysis exploring outcomes beyond 5-years of trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) utilizing drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), are missing. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare very long-term outcomes, between the two interventions.Using electronic databases, we retrieved 4 trials, between January, 2010 and January, 2023. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves of endpoint was reconstructed. Comparisons were made by Cox-linear regression frailty model and by landmark analysis. A flexible parametric model for survival analysis was used to obtain the time-dependent hazard-ratio. A random-effect method was applied.5180 patients were included and randomized to CABG (n=2586) or PCI with DES (n=2594). During 10-year follow-up, PCI showed an overall higher incidence of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.104-1.32; p=0.008)]. At landmark analysis, PCI showed higher risk of the endpoint within 5-years (HR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53; p=0.008) while no difference was found at 5–10-year period (HR,1.03; 95%CI, 0.84-1.26; p=0.76). The time-varying HR analysis of PCI versus CABG was consistent with the results of the landmark analysis. There was no long-term difference between the two interventions for myocardial infarction (MI) (OR,1.42; 95%CI, 0.92-2.18; p=0.11), composite of all-cause mortality, stroke or MI (OR,1.07; 95%CI, 0.84-1.36; p=0.57), stroke (OR,0.97; 95%CI, 0.59-1.59; p=0.91) and cardiovascular death (OR,1.02; 95%CI, 0.75-1.40; p=0.90), while PCI was associated with an increased risk for repeat revascularization (OR,2.11; 95%CI, 1.58-2.81; p<0.001) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR,1.41; 95%CI, 1.13-1.75; p<0.0001). In conclusion, in patients with CAD, there was a significantly overall higher incidence of all-cause mortality after PCI compared to CABG beyond 5-year follow-up. Specifically, CABG is still favorable beyond 5 years and maintains its gold standard role for the CAD treatment; PCI has an evident higher mortality during the first 5 years and a comparable outcome beyond 5 years.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis meta-analysis was performed without funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:As the aggregated data were extracted from the published articles included in the analysis, this meta-analysis is exempted from Ethical Committee evaluation as the investigators of each trial obtained the approval from the local Ethical Committees.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Not ApplicableThe data collection forms, data extracted from included studies and all other data and materials used in this meta-analysis will be available and sharable on specific and reasonable request to the corresponding author.CABGcoronary artery bypass grafting.PCIpercutaneous coronary interventionDESdrug-eluting stentCADcoronary artery diseaseLMDleft main diseaseMVDmultivessel diseaseRCTrandomized controlled trialORodd ratioHRhazard ratioCIconfidence intervalRMSTrestricted mean survival time