INTRODUCTIONFor several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered the “gold standard” for left‐main (LM) coronary artery disease (CAD) (LMCAD) revascularization in patients eligible for surgery . More recently, however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a possible alternative mode of revascularization . Drug‐eluting stents (DES) are suggested to be associated with favorable outcomes for mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target‐vessel/lesion (TV/TL) repeat revascularization (RRV) (TV‐/TL‐RRV), and major adverse cardiac events as compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS) in PCI for LMCAD . Furthermore, a number of medium‐ to large‐size randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (the NOBLE [Nordic‐Baltic‐British left main revascularization] study and the EXCEL [Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization] trial ) and observational studies with propensity‐score analysis of PCI with DES (DES‐PCI) versus CABG for LMCAD have recently reported mid‐ to long‐term results. Propensity‐score analysis including matching, stratification, and covariate adjustment is a powerful tool to strengthen causal inferences drawn from observational studies . To compare follow‐up outcomes after DES‐PCI versus CABG for LMCAD, we performed a meta‐analysis of RCTs and observational studies with propensity‐score analysis. Although all of recently published meta‐analyses of the same topic extracted and then
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2018
Keywords: ; ; ;
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud