Objective: The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with left main coronary artery disease. Methods: Fourteen relevant studies were identified from 5 electronic databases. End points included mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Results: Results indicate that all-cause mortality was similar between drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting at 30 days and at follow-up beyond 1 year. Likewise, the incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting at 12 months and at follow-up beyond 1 year. However, drug-eluting stents were associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality at 12 months and a higher incidence of myocardial infarction at 30 days compared with coronary artery bypass grafting. Drug-eluting stents were consistently associated with a higher incidence of repeat revascularization, whereas coronary artery bypass grafting had a higher incidence of stroke. The incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was similar between the 2 groups at 30 days but higher for drug-eluting stents at 12 months and beyond. Conclusions: Patients treated by drug-eluting stents in randomized controlled trials and observational studies in the current literature are often a preselected subgroup with less complex lesions compared with the overall target population. Results drawn from these studies should be viewed with caution. Coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with a lower incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 1 year and beyond, and thus should be regarded as the standard of treatment. However, drug-eluting stents may have a role for selected patients with percutaneously amenable left main disease who are poor surgical candidates.