Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in end-stage kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies

Kanbay M., Tapoi L., Ureche C., Bulbul M. C. , Kapucu I., AFŞAR B., ...More

HEMODIALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2021 (Peer-Reviewed Journal) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Review
  • Volume:
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.1111/hdi.12946
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE, MEDLINE


The most significant complication of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is cardiovascular disease, mainly coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the effective treatment of CAD is an important prognostic factor, whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is better for treating CAD in this group of patients is still controversial. We searched Pubmed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials articles that compared the outcomes of CABG versus PCI in patients with ESKD requiring dialysis. A total of 10 observational studies with 39,666 patients were included. Our analysis showed that when compared to PCI, CABG had lower risk of need for repeat revascularization (relative risk [RR] = 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.42, p < 0.00001) and cardiovascular death (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.14-1.23, p < 0.00001) and higher risk for short-term mortality (RR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.38-0.48, p < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the risk for late mortality (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.14, p = 0.25), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.46-2.36, p = 0.91) or stroke (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.64-1.61, p = 0.95). This meta-analysis showed that in ESKD patients requiring dialysis, CABG was superior to PCI in regard to cardiovascular death and need for repeat revascularization and inferior to PCI in regard to short term mortality. However, this meta-analysis has limitations and needs confirmation with large randomized controlled trials.