Surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel or left main disease; what happens beyond five years? A systematic review and study level meta-analysis of randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Meta-analysis exploring outcomes beyond 5-years of trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) utilizing drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), are missing. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare very long-term outcomes, between the two interventions. Using electronic databases, we retrieved 4 trials, between January, 2010 and January, 2023. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves of endpoint was reconstructed. Comparisons were made by Cox-linear regression frailty model and by landmark analysis. A flexible parametric model for survival analysis was used to obtain the time-dependent hazard-ratio. A random-effect method was applied. 5180 patients were included and randomized to CABG (n=2586) or PCI with DES (n=2594). During 10-year follow-up, PCI showed an overall higher incidence of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.104-1.32; p=0.008)]. At landmark analysis, PCI showed higher risk of the endpoint within 5-years (HR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53; p=0.008) while no difference was found at 5–10-year period (HR,1.03; 95%CI, 0.84-1.26; p=0.76). The time-varying HR analysis of PCI versus CABG was consistent with the results of the landmark analysis. There was no long-term difference between the two interventions for myocardial infarction (MI) (OR,1.42; 95%CI, 0.92-2.18; p=0.11), composite of all-cause mortality, stroke or MI (OR,1.07; 95%CI, 0.84-1.36; p=0.57), stroke (OR,0.97; 95%CI, 0.59-1.59; p=0.91) and cardiovascular death (OR,1.02; 95%CI, 0.75-1.40; p=0.90), while PCI was associated with an increased risk for repeat revascularization (OR,2.11; 95%CI, 1.58-2.81; p<0.001) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR,1.41; 95%CI, 1.13-1.75; p<0.0001). In conclusion, in patients with CAD, there was a significantly overall higher incidence of all-cause mortality after PCI compared to CABG beyond 5-year follow-up. Specifically, CABG is still favorable beyond 5 years and maintains its gold standard role for the CAD treatment; PCI has an evident higher mortality during the first 5 years and a comparable outcome beyond 5 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".