Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28903139›Full record

SynthesisJAMA cardiology2017

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Daniele Giacoppo, Roisin Colleran, Salvatore Cassese, Antonio H Frangieh, Jens Wiebe, Michael Joner, Heribert Schunkert, Adnan Kastrati, Robert A Byrne

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 123 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Long-term clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for ostial left main coronary artery disease.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniele GiacoppoDeutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Roisin ColleranDeutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Salvatore CasseseDeutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Antonio H FrangiehDeutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Jens WiebeDeutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Michael JonerDeutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Heribert SchunkertDeutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Adnan KastratiDeutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Robert A ByrneDeutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Technical University of Munich · DEDeutsches Herzzentrum München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: In patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the standard therapy for several decades. However, some studies suggest that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative. Objective: To compare the long-term safety of PCI with drug-eluting stent vs CABG in patients with LMCA stenosis. Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and ScienceDirect databases were searched from December 18, 2001, to February 1, 2017. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trial, patients with LMCA stenosis, PCI vs CABG, exclusive use of drug-eluting stents, and clinical follow-up of 3 or more years. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Trial-level hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled by fixed-effect and random-effects models with inverse variance weighting. Time-to-event individual patient data for the primary end point were reconstructed. Sensitivity analyses according to drug-eluting stent generation and coronary artery disease complexity were performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at long-term follow-up. Secondary end points included repeat revascularization and a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at long-term follow-up. Results: A total of 4 randomized clinical trials were pooled; 4394 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 3371 (76.7%) were men; pooled mean age was 65.4 years. According to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, evidence quality with respect to the primary composite end point was high. Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG were associated with a comparable risk of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke both by fixed-effect (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.24; P = .48) and random-effects (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.32; P = .60) analysis. Sensitivity analyses according to low to intermediate Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (random-effects: HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.74-1.41; P = .89) and drug-eluting stent generation (first generation: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.20; P = .49; second generation: HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.73; P = .36) were consistent. Kaplan-Meier curve reconstruction did not show significant variations over time between the techniques, with a 5-year incidence of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke of 18.3% (319 events) in patients treated with PCI and 16.9% (292 events) in patients treated with CABG. However, repeat revascularization after PCI was increased (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.42-2.05; P < .001). Other individual secondary end points did not differ significantly between groups. Finally, pooled estimates of trials with LMCA stenosis tended overall to differ significantly from those of trials with multivessel coronary artery disease without left main LMCA stenosis. Conclusions and Relevance: Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG show comparable safety in patients with LMCA stenosis and low to intermediate-complexity coronary artery disease. However, repeat revascularization is more common after PCI.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery BypassCoronary StenosisDrug-Eluting StentsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionMyocardial RevascularizationPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReoperationStroke

Identifiers

PMID28903139
PMCPMC5710445
OpenAlexW2756327772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.