Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Isolated Left Anterior Descending Artery Stenosis: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization strategy for isolated left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery lesion between minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare the long- and short-term outcomes of MIDCAB versus PCI for patients with isolated LAD coronary artery lesions.

METHODS

The Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for retrieving potential publications from 2002 to 2022. The primary outcome was long-term survival. Secondary outcomes were long-term target vessel revascularization (TVR), long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and short-term outcomes, including postoperative mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), TVR, and MACEs of any cause in-hospital or 30 days after the revascularization.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies were included in this updated meta-analysis. In total, 1757 patients underwent MIDCAB and 15245 patients underwent PCI. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in the rates of long-term survival. MIDCAB had a lower long-term MACE rate compared with PCI. Besides, PCI resulted in an augmented risk of TVR. Postoperative mortality, MI, TVR, and MACEs were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated meta-analysis presents the evidence that MIDCAB has a reduced risk of long-term TVR and MACEs, with no benefit in terms of long-term mortality and short-term results, in comparison with PCI. Large multicenter RCTs, including patients treated with newer techniques, are warranted in the future.