Menu
Peptide Database
Results
No peptides found
Featured

Use search to browse all 100+ peptides

KPV

Lys-Pro-Val, α-MSH (11-13)

Quick Stats
Studies 104
Trials 57
Score 2
2016 pubmed

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Nerlekar. Nitesh N; Ha. Francis J FJ; Verma. Kunal P KP; Bennett. Martin R MR; Cameron. James D JD; Meredith. Ian T IT; Brown. Adam J AJ

Key Findings

  • Overall safety (death, heart attack, stroke) was similar for PCI with drug‑eluting stents and CABG.
  • PCI was less effective because patients needed repeat revascularization about 85% more often than with CABG.
  • All‑cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke rates did not differ significantly between the two approaches.

Practical Outcomes

  • For people facing left‑main coronary artery disease, both stents and bypass surgery are safe, but bypass surgery reduces the chance of needing another heart procedure later. Biohackers focused on longevity should prioritize preventing severe artery disease through lifestyle and risk‑factor management, as the choice of revascularization method has limited impact on overall survival.

Summary

A big analysis of five randomized trials looked at whether putting drug‑coated stents (PCI) is as safe and effective as heart bypass surgery (CABG) for a serious blockage in the main heart artery. It found that both methods are equally safe in terms of death, heart attacks, and strokes, but stents lead to more repeat procedures later on.

Abstract

Current guidelines suggest that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should be the preferred revascularization method for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. In light of evidence from recent randomized trials, we assessed whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents is as safe and effective as CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Digital databases and manual searches were performed for randomized trials comparing PCI and CABG for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Among 3887 potentially relevant studies, 5 met inclusion criteria. The primary safety end point was defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included a clinical effectiveness composite, which was defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Summary estimates were obtained using random-effects modeling. In total, 4594 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the primary safety end point between the revascularization strategies (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.17; P=0.73). However, when compared with CABG, PCI was less effective (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58; P<0.001) because of significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.53-2.23; P<0.001). The incidence of all-cause death (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78-1.35; P=0.61), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.88-2.45; P=0.08), and stroke (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.39-1.97; P=0.53) did not differ between PCI and CABG. PCI using drug-eluting stents and CABG are equally safe methods of revascularization for patients at low surgical risk with significant unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. However, CABG is associated with significantly lower rates of repeat revascularization.

Study Information

Provider

pubmed

Year

2016

DOI

10.1161/circinterventions.116.004729