ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Revascularization strategy for left main coronary artery disease comparing percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery bypass grafting(CABG) has long been the preferred treatment for left main coronary artery disease(LMCAD), although percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) has been increasingly utilized. Despite numerous investigations seeking to identify the optimal revascularization strategy for LMCAD, limitations in sample size or follow-up duration have hindered definitive conclusions. Herein, we compare the long-term outcomes up to 14 years after CABG or PCI for patients with LMCAD.
methodsData was retrospectively collected from a provincial database. The inclusion criteria is patients ≥18 years old, with LMCAD, and revascularization with CABG or PCI. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes are any rehospitalization, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization. Outcomes are adjusted for age, sex, and clinical comorbidities. The average age of the patients was 67 ± 9 years for the CABG patients and 71 ± 11 years for the PCI patients. 84.7% of the CABG patients and 71.5% of the PCI patients were male.
results5580 patients are identified with LMCAD between 2009 and 2018. 1706 patients (1180 CABG; 526 PCI) are included in the final analysis and followed until March 31, 2023. Rates of mortality at longest follow-up of 14 years are 40.0% for CABG and 58.4% for PCI (adjusted hazard ratio(aHR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval(CI) 0.48-0.70, p < 0.001). Rates of MI (10.7% vs 22.3%, aHR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.55, p < 0.001) and repeat revascularization (5.4%vs16.3%, aHR 0.25, 95% CI 0.18-0.36, p < 0.001) favor CABG over PCI.
conclusionsPatients with LMCAD undergoing CABG experience significant benefit over PCI in terms of long-term mortality, MI, and required repeat revascularization. These finding suggest CABG should remain the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with LMCAD and acceptable surgical risk. Future studies should explore evolving PCI techniques and their impact on long-term outcomes.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.