Coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease: An individual patient data pooled meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Abstract

It is unclear whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improves survival compared with medical therapy (MT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this analysis was to perform an individual-patient data-pooled meta-analysis of contemporary randomized controlled trials that compared CABG and MT in patients with stable CAD. A systematic search was performed in January 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials enrolling adult patients with stable CAD, randomized to CABG or MT. Only trials using at least aspirin, beta-blockers, and statins in the MT arm were included. Individual patient data were obtained from all eligible studies and pooled. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Four trials involving 2523 patients (1261 CABG; 1262 MT) were included with a median follow-up of 5.6 (4.0-9.2) years. CABG was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality within 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 4.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-11.83) but subsequent reduction in the long-term risk of death (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89). As such, the cumulative 10-year mortality rate was lower in patients treated with CABG compared with MT (45.1% vs 51.7%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85). Age and race were significant treatment effect modifier (interaction P = .003 for both). In patients with stable CAD, initial allocation to CABG was associated with greater periprocedural risk of death but improved long-term survival compared with MT. The survival advantage for CABG became significant after the fourth postoperative year and was particularly pronounced in younger and non-White patients.

Similar article map