Outcomes of coronary artery interventions: Comparing coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with unprotected left main stenosis

Purpose: The purpose of this integrative review is to examine the existing literature comparing short- and long-term outcomes of both coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. CABG has long been considered the standard of treatment for ULMCA stenosis; however, advancements in the use of PCI have made it a viable alternative treatment option. Data sources: Sixteen articles were selected from a literature search using the PubMed database, with at least 1 year of follow-up and adjustment for established risk factors. Conclusions: The majority of studies found CABG and PCI with stenting to be comparable and equally safe treatment strategies for patients with ULMCA stenosis. Some studies found that PCI had a significantly lower risk for adverse events and mortality compared to CABG. However, a large number of studies found that PCI had a higher rate of target vessel restenosis. Implications for practice: Advanced practice nurses have become a prominent and influential part of the healthcare delivery system. As such, advanced practice nurses should be educated on the current research about coronary artery interventions so that they may better screen, treat, and manage this patient population.