Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundTreatment of left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the optimal choice of therapy when treating LMCAD in patients with CKD.MethodWe performed an electronic database search of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for all studies that compared PCI with CABG when treating LMCAD in the setting of CKD. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events, all-cause mortality, and repeat revascularization.ResultsOur analysis included 5 studies (2 randomized controlled trial and 3 retrospective) representing a total of 1212 patients. Mean follow up was 3.4 ± 1.3 years. Our study demonstrated a significant reduction in MACCE for patients treated with CABG compared with PCI (odd ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55–0.95, P = 0.02, I² = 0%). We also found a significant reduction in both MI (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.34–0.87; P = 0.01; I² = 0%) and repeat revascularization (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.10–0.51; P < 0.001, I² = 63%) in the CABG group. However, CABG was associated with increased risks of cerebrovascular disease events compared with PCI (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.02–4.08; P = 0.04, I² = 0%).ConclusionIn patients with CKD requiring LMCAD intervention, CABG is associated with a lower risk of MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization, however it was associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular accidents when compared to patients who received PCI therapy. Further RCTs with sufficient power are required to confirm these findings.     

Outcomes With Drug-Coated Balloons vs. Drug-Eluting Stents in Small-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease

BackgroundThe use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in small-vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) remains controversial.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of DCB vs. DES in de-novo SVD. We included a total of 5 RCTs (1459 patients), with (DCB n = 734 and DES n = 725).ResultsOver a median follow-up duration of 6 months, DCB was associated with smaller late lumen loss (LLL) compared with DES (mean difference −0.12 mm) (95% confidence intervals (CI) [−0.21, −0.03 mm], p = 0.01). Over a median follow-up of 12 months, both modalities had similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (8.7% vs. 10.2%; odds ratio (OR): 0.94, 95% CI [0.49–1.79], p = 084), all-cause mortality (1.17% vs. 2.38%; OR: 0.53, 95% CI [0.16–1.75], p = 0.30), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.9% vs. 3.9%; OR: 1.26, 95% CI [0.51–3.14], p = 0.62), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (8.2% vs. 7.8%; OR: 1.06, 95% CI [0.40–2.82], p = 0.91). DCBs were associated with lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) compared with DES (1.55% vs. 3.31%; OR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.23–1.00], p = 0.05, I2 = 0%).ConclusionPCI of SVD with DCBs is associated with smaller LLL, lower risk of MI, and similar risk of MACE, death, TLR, and TVR compared with DES over one year. DCB appears as an attractive alternative to DES in patients with de-novo SVD, but long-term clinical data are still needed.     

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Large Coronary Artery Revascularization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesWe aim to determine if drug eluting stents (DES) are better than bare-metal stents (BMS) in large coronary artery (diameter ≥ 3 mm) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundDES have become the standard of care for PCI in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the superiority of DES over BMS in large vessel CAD is not clear and previous studies have shown conflicting results.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of PCI with BMS and DES for large vessel CAD were identified from the year 2000 to August 2019. The outcomes were studied individually and included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. Aggregated odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model.ResultsEight RCTs were included (4 with data for first-generation DES, 3 with data for second-generation DES, and 1 with data for both first- and second-generation DES). Compared to BMS, second generation DES had a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (2.4% vs. 3.9%, OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.98, P 0.04), TLR (3.5% vs. 8.6% OR 0.38 95% CI 0.28–0.53, P < 0.001), and MI (2.1% vs. 2.9% OR 0.73 95% CI 0.53–1.0, P 0.05). The difference in all-cause mortality was not seen with first-generation DES.ConclusionNewer DES are associated with a lower mortality, TLR, and MI and thus should be preferred over BMS for large coronary artery PCI.     

Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: An Update Meta-Analysis

Objective

Permanent polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) are associated with a higher risk of late and very late stent thrombosis (ST); biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) were designed to reduce these risks. However, their benefits are not completely clear.

Method

We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized studies identified in systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database. Eligible studies were those that compared BP-DES with second-generation permanent polymer DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Results

Five studies (8,740 patients) with a mean follow-up of 19.2 months were included. Overall, BP-DES were associated with a broadly equivalent risk of definite and probable ST (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 1.71; P?=?0.76; I ²?=?5.0 %), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.04; 95 % CI, 0.87 to 1.24; P?=?0.68; I ²?=?38.0 %), all-cause mortality (OR, 1.10; 95 % CI, 0.87 to 1.41; P?=?0.42; I ²?=?0.0 %), and major adverse cardiac events (OR, 1.03; 95 % CI, 0.88 to 1.20; P?=?0.74; I ²?=?0.0 %) when compared with second-generation DES. However, BP-DES significantly decreased in-stent late luminal loss (standard mean difference [SMD], ?0.01; 95 % CI, ?0.12 to 0.11; P?=?0.93; I ²?=?0.0 %) and in-segment late luminal loss (SMD, ?0.06; 95 % CI, ?0.17 to 0.05; P?=?0.27; I ²?=?0.0 %) compared with second-generation DES.

Conclusions

Compared with second-generation permanent polymer DES, biodegradable stents appear to have equivalent short- to medium-term clinical benefits, and it remains unclear whether they reduce the incidence of very late ST.