Introduction:
Despite increasing incidence and mortality of CAD among young and mid-age patients (age ≤ 65), the optimum revascularization strategy remains unclear. We compared outcomes of PCI and CABG in this patient group.
Methods:
“Coronary artery bypass” and “percutaneous coronary intervention” were used to identify articles in PubMed and Cochrane database published prior to February 2, 2020. Both RCTs and observational studies (OSs) comparing PCI and CABG with data of patients or subgroups patients ≤ 65 years of age were included. The quality of study data was assessed by RoB2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoint includes MI, stroke, repeat revascularization (RR), and a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac cerebral events (MACCE). We calculated odds ratio using Mantel-Haenszel method with random effects.
Results:
A total of 10 RCTs and 20 OSs with 31226 CAD patients were included in our analysis, of which 1 RCT and 4 OSs focused on population ≤ 65 years old while the rest provided subgroup data. The risk of bias RCTs were low to middle, and quality ratings of OSs were 4-8 by NOS. Compared to CABG, PCI was associated with a higher risk of mortality (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.24-1.62, P<0.001), MACCE (OR 1.99, P<0.001), MI (OR 2.13, P = 0.011), and RR (OR 3.88, P<0.001). The risk of stroke is similar in both groups (OR 0.883, P= 0.506). However, after stratification, mortality rate is similar in studies with follow-up period ≤ 3 years. (OR 1.27, P=0.255) but remain significant with longer follow-up (OR 1.41, P<0.001).
Conclusions:
Compared to PCI, CABG is associated with lower all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged CAD patients, especially with long follow-up indicating superior long-term survival. Given the longer life-expectancy in this age group, the advantage of CABG is even more prominent. However, given the retrospective nature of this study, dedicated RCT is needed to further address this question.