Published in:
Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article
Minimally invasive direct coronary bypass compared with percutaneous coronary intervention for left anterior descending artery disease: a meta-analysis
Published in: Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery | Issue 1/2016
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
The clinical outcomes for left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery lesion between minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are still controversial. The objective was to compare safety and efficacy between MIDCAB and PCI for LAD.
Methods
Electronic databases and article references were systematically searched to access relevant studies. End points included mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), major adverse coronary events (MACE), angina recurrence, and stroke.
Results
Fourteen studies with 941 patients were finally involved in the present study. The mortality and incidence of myocardial infarction were similar in MIDCAB and PCI groups at 30 days, 6 months, and at follow-up beyond 1 year. Compared with PCI, MIDCAB decreased incidence of TVR and MACE at 6 months and beyond 1 year follow-up. MIDCAB was associated with a lower incidence of angina recurrence at 6 months compared with PCI. PCI was associated with higher risk of restenosis in target vessel. No significant difference was shown for stroke.
Conclusion
Our meta-analysis indicates that there are no significant differences in the safety between MIDCAB and PCI in patients with LAD. However MIDCAB is superior to PCI for TVR and MACE.