Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary artery disease, but use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this indication is increasing. We aimed to compare PCI and CABG for treatment of left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary artery disease were enrolled in 36 centres in northern Europe and randomised 1:1 to treatment with PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 24 h, being considered too high risk for CABG or PCI, or expected survival of less than 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the 95% CI not to exceed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·35 after up to 5 years of follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle was used in the analysis if not specified otherwise. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, number NCT01496651. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were randomly assigned, 598 to PCI and 603 to CABG, and 592 in each group entered analysis by intention to treat. Kaplan-Meier 5 year estimates of MACCE were 29% for PCI (121 events) and 19% for CABG (81 events), HR 1·48 (95% CI 1·11-1·96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI (p=0·0066). As-treated estimates were 28% versus 19% (1·55, 1·18-2·04, p=0·0015). Comparing PCI with CABG, 5 year estimates were 12% versus 9% (1·07, 0·67-1·72, p=0·77) for all-cause mortality, 7% versus 2% (2·88, 1·40-5·90, p=0·0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 16% versus 10% (1·50, 1·04-2·17, p=0·032) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2·25, 0·93-5·48, p=0·073) for stroke. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this study suggest that CABG might be better than PCI for treatment of left main stem coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Biosensors, Aarhus University Hospital, and participating sites.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32052-9

Type

Journal article

Journal

Lancet

Publication Date

03/12/2016

Volume

388

Pages

2743 - 2752

Keywords

Aged, Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary, Coronary Artery Bypass, Coronary Artery Disease, Drug-Eluting Stents, Europe, Female, Humans, Male, Myocardial Infarction, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Stroke, Treatment Outcome