高龄无保护左主干病变不宜行冠状动脉搭桥患者介入治疗效果评价

目的:冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)一直是左主干病变的首选治疗,关于高龄左主干病变但不宜行CABG治疗的患者临床研究较少。本研究针对这一特殊人群进行经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)治疗后的临床情况进行随访。方法:入选年龄≥75岁不宜行CABG治疗的无保护左主干病变患者,随访患者的临床终点事件,死亡、心源性死亡、心肌梗死及靶血管重建。结果:研究共入选115例高龄左主干病变患者。平均年龄(78.3±2.6)岁,平均Syntax评分和Euroscore评分为(29.3±6.1)和(7.8±4.2),随访总病死率是9.5%,心源性死亡、心肌梗死及靶血管重建率分别为7%,6.1%及6.1%,MACCE事件发生率为16.5%。男性和慢性肾功能不全与全因死亡显著相关。结论:PCI治疗为高龄不宜行CABG治疗的左主干患者提供了α-选择。男性和慢性肾功能不全与全因死亡显著相关。     

Percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis

Hemodynamically significant left main coronary artery stenosis (LMCA) is found in around 4% of diagnostic coronary angiograms and is known as unprotected LMCA stenosis if the left coronary artery and left circumflex artery has no previous patent grafts. Previous randomized studies have demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality when revascularization by coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was undertaken compared with medical treatment. Therefore, current practice guidelines do not recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for such a lesion because of the proven benefit of surgery and high rates of restenosis with the use of bare metal stents. However, with the advent of drug-eluting stents (DES), the long term outcomes of PCI with DES to treat unprotected LMCA stenoses have been acceptable. Therefore, apart from the current guidelines, PCI for treatment of unprotected LMCA stenosis is often undertaken in individuals who are at a very high risk of CABG or refuse to undergo a sternotomy. Future randomized studies comparing CABG vs PCI using DES for treatment of unprotected LMCA stenosis would be a great advance in clinical knowledge for the adoption of appropriate treatment.     

无保护左主干病变冠状动脉搭桥术与雷帕霉素洗脱支架治疗的对比研究

目的:回顾性分析无保护左主干病变患者使用雷帕霉素洗脱支架(DES)的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与冠状动脉旁路移植手术(CABG)治疗的中、远期疗效,并探讨应用SYNTAX SCORE来评估病变风险与临床事件的相关性。方法:本研究回顾性收集了176例无保护左主干病变患者,其中CABG组80例,PCI-DES组96例。收集患者的基本情况、左主干病变特点及SYNTAX评分、CABG和PCI手术情况,随访患者术后3年的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)的发生率。结果:术后3年随访,PCI-DES组与CABG组的MACCE发生率及无MACCE生存率比较差异无统计学意义,但PCI组靶血管再次血运重建率(TVR)明显高于CABG组(P<0.05)。用SYNTAX SCORE把PCI-DES和CABG两组患者分为高积分组(≥30.0)和低积分组(<30.0):高积分组,术后3年PCI-DES亚组MACCE事件发生率高于CABG亚组(23.53%∶18.05%,P<0.05),无MACCE事件生存率低于CABG亚组(51.47%∶70.83%,P<0.05)。低积分组,术后3年MACCE事件发生率CABG亚组高于PCI-DES亚组(12.50%∶7.14%,P>0.05),而无MACCE事件生存率低于PCI-DES亚组(75.00%∶82.14%,P<0.05)。结论:PCI-DES与CABG治疗无保护左主干病变患者总体疗效相似。用SYNTAX SCORE指导无保护左主干病变血管重建方式的选择有重要价值,但在不同的患者人群中,仍应结合临床特征和冠状动脉病变特点选择恰当的血运重建术。     

Revascularization of left main coronary artery disease

Coronary artery disease with left main stenosis is associated with the highest mortality of any coronary lesion. Studies in the 1970s and 1980s comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and medical therapy showed a significant survival benefit with revascularization. In the angioplasty era, initial experience with percutaneous intervention was associated with poor clinical outcomes. As a result, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was restricted to patients who were considered inoperable, or those with prior CABG with a functional graft to the left anterior descending or circumflex artery ("protected left main disease"). With the introduction of drug-eluting stents, there are new studies demonstrating comparable survival in patients who were revascularized using PCI and CABG, although percutaneous revascularization is associated with a higher rate of repeat revascularization. In the SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial, the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke was similar between the CABG and PCI groups; however, the stroke rate was higher in the CABG group. The degree and extent of disease as defined by the SYNTAX scoring system has allowed for stratification of risk and improved assignment of patients with left main stenosis to either PCI or CABG.     

无保护左主干末端病变接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术远期效果评价

目的研究不同血管重建方式对无保护左主干（ULMCA）末端病变患者治疗的效果及预后意义。方法连续收录冠状动脉造影明确诊断为ULMCA末端病变的222例患者临床资料,其中106例置入药物洗脱支架（PCI组）,116例行冠状动脉旁路移植手术（CABG组）,观察两组患者在12个月及3年发生全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管重建和主要不良心脏事件发生率,研究不同血管重建方式对ULMCA末端病变治疗效果的影响。结果两组患者在12个月期间,主要终点事件如全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死差别无统计学意义（分别为：χ2=1.05,P=0.32和χ2=1.04,P=0.38）,靶血管重建以及主要不良心脏事件发生率差异有统计学意义（分别为：χ2=5.45,P=0.02和χ2=6.63,P=0.01）。累积3年随访,PCI组与CABG组相比全因死亡率降低33%（10.38%比12.07%,χ2=0.47,P=0.45）,但非致死性心肌梗死是后者的1.87倍（2.1%比0,χ2=1.04,P=0.38）。PCI组靶血管重建率是CABG组4.17倍（20.76%比8.62%,χ2=6.63,P〈0.01）,而主要不良心脏事件两组相比差异有统计学意义（33.02%比20.68%,χ2=4.78,P=0.03）。结论 ULMCA末端病变采用PCI或CABG进行血管重建是安全有效的。对解剖结构适合PCI且患者拒绝或不宜行CABG的ULMCA末端病变患者来说,药物洗脱支架PCI术是一种可以选择的替代治疗方案。     

Results of percutaneous coronary intervention of the unprotected left main coronary artery in 143 patients and comparison of 30-day mortality to results of coronary artery bypass grafting

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) is controversial. In 143 patients who underwent PCI of the unprotected LMCA, 30-day mortality was compared with predicted cumulative risk-adjusted perioperative surgical mortality based on logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation. One-year clinical follow-up was completed in all patients. The overall major adverse cardiac event rate at 1 year was 34.3%, reflecting the high-risk profile of the patient population. Twelve patients (8%) experienced an acute myocardial infarction and 16 (11%) underwent target lesion revascularization. In 31 patients (22%) who died during the first year, median logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation was 30%. Calculated RRs showed significantly lower 30-day mortality using PCI compared with predicted surgical mortality (RR 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.86). Angiographic follow-up in 90 of the 118 patients alive at 6 months showed binary restenosis of 6% in patients treated with drug-eluting stents versus 29% in patients receiving bare-metal stents (p < or =0.01). In conclusion, PCI for unprotected LMCA disease was associated with acceptable short- and medium-term outcomes in patients at low to intermediate risk of bypass surgery. Mortality remains high in very high-risk patients unsuitable for surgery. However, in selected indications, PCI of the LMCA can offer an alternative to surgery, especially when using drug-eluting stents.     

Comparison of one-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes (from the CUSTOMIZE Registry)

Uncertainty surrounds the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs), and adequately sized specific comparisons of percutaneous and surgical revascularization in this scenario are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with left main coronary artery disease and ACS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). A total of 583 patients were included. At 1 year, MACEs were significantly higher in patients treated with PCI (n = 222) compared to those treated with CABG (n = 361, 14.4% vs 5.3%, p <0.001), driven by a higher rate of target lesion revascularization (8.1% vs 1.7%, p = 0.001). This finding was consistent after statistical adjustment for MACEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 5.9, p = 0.01) and target lesion revascularization (adjusted HR 8.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 28.7, p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences between PCI and CABG were noted for death (adjusted HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 3.0, p = 0.81) and myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 4.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 68.6, p = 0.25). No interaction between clinical presentation (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) and treatment (PCI or CABG) was observed (p for interaction = 0.68). In conclusion, in patients with left main coronary artery disease and ACS, PCI is associated with similar safety compared to CABG but higher risk of MACEs driven by increased risk of repeat revascularization.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: in-hospital and one year outcome after emergent and elective treatments

This study attempts to compare the risks and benefits of provisional stenting with drug eluting stents and bypass surgery for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. Recent improvements in interventional technologies have increased interest in percutaneous treatment of LMCA stenosis. However, application of percutaneous techniques to LMCA has been sporadic and controversial. In-hospital and one year outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cases were compared. From September, 2003 to June, 2005, a total of 59 consecutive patients with de novo unprotected LMCA stenosis were treated with either CABG or PCI. Twenty patients received non-intravascular ultrasound-guided PCI with a stent in the LMCA. Thirty-nine patients underwent CABG. At 30-day follow-up, the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACE) rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebral vascular accident, and target vessel revascularization were 25.6% in the CABG group and 5% in the PCI group (P=0.054). At one year follow-up, the MACE rates were 33.3% in the CABG group and 5% in the PCI group. One year MACE for the CABG group significantly differed from that of the PCI group (P=0.015). The odds ratio (OR) of one year MACE-free survival was 0.75 (P<0.001) in the CABG group versus the PCI group. Further analysis demonstrated there was a significant difference in in-hospital MACE and one year MACE between the elective CABG group and elective PCI group (P=0.045). However, there was no significant difference between the emergent CABG group and emergent PCI group (P=1.000 for in-hospital MACE; P=0.486 for one year MACE). PCI on unprotected LM offers an alternative option in patients with high surgical risk and appropriate lesion morphology.     

A comparison between coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and drug eluting stent for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in elderly patients (aged > or =75 years).

AIMS: In this study, we compared the clinical outcomes of elderly patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis treated with either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or drug-eluting stent (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2003 to April 2006, 259 patients with ULMCA stenosis and age > or =75 years underwent coronary revascularization with either CABG or DES. One hundred and sixty-one patients were treated with CABG and 98 with DES. The cumulative unadjusted rates of 2-year mortality were 17% in CABG-treated patients and 18% in those treated with DES (P = 0.71). The adjusted rates of 2-year survival were 85% for CABG-treated patients and 87% for DES-treated patients (P = 0.74). The incidence of 2-year myocardial infarction was 6% in CABG-treated patients and 4% in DES-treated patients (P = 0.11). The incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 3% in CABG-treated patients and 25% in DES-treated patients (P < 0.0001). In the multivariable analysis, peripheral vascular disease, left ventricular ejection fraction and acute coronary syndrome were independent predictors of 2-year mortality. CONCLUSION: In this study, we could not demonstrate a difference in mortality between CABG-treated patients and those treated with DES. However, the rate of TLR was higher in the DES group.     

Treatment of unprotected left main disease with drug-eluting stents in patients at high risk for coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for high-grade stenosis of the left main coronary artery with bare-metal stents has been limited by restenosis, and most patients are managed with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Recently, drug-eluting stents (DES) have reduced instent restenosis after PCI, but their role in the treatment of left main disease remains unclear. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes after utilizing DES to treat left main disease. METHODS: Twenty consecutive symptomatic patients with >50% angiographic stenosis of the left main coronary artery with no prior history of CABG ["unprotected left main" (ULM)] underwent PCI with DES. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence (Group A, n=5) or absence (Group B, n=15) of preprocedural cardiogenic shock. At follow up (median, 14 months), cumulative major adverse cardiac events (MACE-death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) were determined. RESULTS: Sixteen (80%) of 20 patients were at high risk for CABG because of comorbidity, advanced age, or cardiogenic shock. Procedural success was 100% (20/20). Three of five patients in Group A (60%) died in hospital and the two surviving patients experienced no MACE at follow up. In Group B (n=15), there was no in-hospital MACE, but one patient died suddenly 8 weeks postprocedure [cumulative MACE of 7% (1/15)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of ULM treatment with DES with acceptable medium-term outcomes. While CABG remains the best form of revascularization for the majority of patients with ULM, DES should be considered in those who are at high risk.     

Revascularization of unprotected left main coronary artery disease: Strategy selection and systematic risk assessment

Refinement of interventional techniques, adjunctive pharmacological therapy, and the introduction of drug eluting stents have fostered new interest for the percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. Several observational registries, some randomized controlled trials and several meta‐analyses have consistently shown no difference in mortality and myocardial infarction between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with ULMCA stenosis, but a higher rate of target vessel revascularization in patients treated with PCI. As a consequence, PCI of ULMCA stenosis has been upgraded to class IIa or IIb indication in the current European or American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association practice guidelines. Although these results are promising, they do not still represent enough evidence for extending PCI of ULMCA stenosis to current clinical practice. The EXCEL trial will address the value of PCI in relation to CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis in more than 2000 patients. A major breakthrough of the SYNTAX trial has been the demonstration of an interaction between the coronary complexity and the revascularization strategy, suggesting that optimal risk stratification is a key element when deciding the best strategy of revascularization in this high‐risk group of patients. Multidisciplinary team approach remains essential to provide a balanced information to the patient and to offer the beast treatment option. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Revascularization for coronary artery disease in diabetes mellitus: Angioplasty,stents and coronary artery bypass grafting

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are prone to a diffuse and rapidly progressive form of atherosclerosis, which increases their likelihood of requiring revascularization. However, the unique pathophysiology of atherosclerosis in patients with DM modifies the response to arterial injury, with profound clinical consequences for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Multiple studies have shown that DM is a strong risk factor for restenosis following successful balloon angioplasty or coronary stenting, with greater need for repeat revascularization and inferior clinical outcomes. Early data suggest that drug eluting stents reduce restenosis rates and the need for repeat revascularization irrespective of the diabetic state and with no significant reduction in hard clinical endpoints such as myocardial infarction and mortality. For many patients with 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease, there is little prognostic benefit from any intervention over optimal medical therapy. PCI with drug-eluting or bare metal stents is appropriate for patients who remain symptomatic with medical therapy. However, selection of the optimal myocardial revascularization strategy for patients with DM and multivessel coronary artery disease is crucial. Randomized trials comparing multivessel PCI with balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) consistently demonstrated the superiority of CABG in patients with treated DM. In the setting of diabetes CABG had greater survival, fewer recurrent infarctions or need for re-intervention. Limited data suggests that CABG is superior to multivessel PCI even when drug-eluting stents are used. Several ongoing randomized trials are evaluating the long-term comparative efficacy of PCI with drug-eluting stents and CABG in patients with DM. Only further study will continue to unravel the mechanisms at play and optimal therapy in the face of the profoundly virulent atherosclerotic potential that accompanies diabetes mellitus.     

药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干病变的临床疗效对比

目的:评估药物洗脱支架(DES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗无保护左主干病变的临床疗效。方法:分析2003-10-2010-09期间行血运重建的282例无保护左主干患者的临床资料,其中接受DES者143例(DES组),接受CABG者139例(CABG组),比较2组住院期和随访期心脑血管不良事件(死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、脑卒中和再次血运重建,即MACCE)的发生情况。结果:DES组手术成功率为100%,住院期间1例发生非致死性心肌梗死,无一例死亡、脑血管意外或需再次血运重建;CABG组手术成功率为95.7%,住院期间有1例发生非致死性急性心肌梗死,无一例需再次血运重建,共有6例死亡;CABG组住院期死亡率明显高于DES组(4.3%∶0,P<0.05),住院期CABG组总MACCE发生率也明显高于DES组(5.0%∶0.7%,P<0.05);随访期平均(17±8)个月,DES组临床心绞痛复发率和再次血运重建率较CABG组有增高趋势(7.8%∶2.7%,7.0%∶1.8%),但差异无统计学意义,其总MACCE发生率显著高于CABG组(14.8%∶7.1%,P<0.05);剔除新发病变及病变进展病例后,2组总MACCE发生率(7.8%∶7.1%)差异无统计学意义。结论:DES治疗无保护左主干病变安全和有效,可以作为CABG的一种替代治疗手段。     

Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention(with drug-eluting stents) versus coronary artery bypass grafting in women with severe narrowing of the left main coronary artery(from the Women-Drug-Eluting Stent for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Regist

Women typically present with coronary artery disease later than men with more unfavorable clinical and anatomic characteristics. It is unknown whether differences exist in women undergoing treatment for unprotected left main coronary artery(ULMCA) disease. Our aim was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes in women treated with percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting(CABG). All consecutive women from the Drug-Eluting stent for LefT main coronary Artery disease registry with ULMCA disease were analyzed. A propensity matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences. In total, 817 women were included: 489(59.8%) underwent treatment with PCI with drug-eluting stents versus 328(40.2%) with CABG. Propensity score matching identified 175 matched pairs, and at longterm follow-up there were no differences in all-cause(odds ratio [OR] 0.722, 95% confidence interval [CI]0.357 to 1.461, P = 0.365) or cardiovascular(OR 1.100, 95% CI 0.455 to 2.660, P = 0.832) mortality, myocardial infarction(MI; OR 0.362, 95% CI 0.094 to 1.388, P = 0.138), or cerebrovascular accident(CVA;OR 1.200, 95% CI 0.359 to 4.007, P = 0.767) resulting in no difference in the primary study objective of death, MI, or CVA(OR 0.711, 95% CI 0.387 to 1.308, P = 0.273). However, there was an advantage of CABG in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events(OR 0.429, 95% CI 0.254 to 0.723, P =0.001), driven exclusively by target vessel revascularization(OR 0.185, 95% CI 0.079 to 0.432, P 0.001).In women with significant ULMCA disease, no difference was observed after PCI or CABG in death, MI,and CVA at long-term follow-up.     

Drug-eluting stents for left main coronary artery stenosis: case selection and technical issues

The use of coronary stents for the treatment of left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis is feasible and is associated with a high rate of procedural success and low rates of early and late complications, such as death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis, in low-risk patient populations. Patients at high risk for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), however, have reduced event-free survival after stenting. Compared with bare-metal stents for LMCA disease, the subsequent rate of target lesion revascularization appears to be diminished by use of drug-eluting stents (DESs), with similar or enhanced survival and freedom from myocardial infarction. Intravascular ultrasonographic guidance during the procedure is strongly encouraged to assess the lesion, select an appropriate stenting technique, and achieve optimal stent placement. Results of prospective randomized trials comparing the use of DESs with CABG may be needed to ascertain whether DESs could be a reasonable alternative for patients with LMCA disease.     

Long-term follow-up after percutaneous treatment of the unprotected left main stenosis in high risk patients not suitable for bypass surgery

Introduction and objectives

Percutaneous coronary intervention is recommended in patients with unprotected left main stenosis non suitable for coronary artery bypass graft. Long-term follow-up of those patients remains uncertain.

Methods

All patients with de novo unprotected left main stenosis treated with stent implantation were consecutively enrolled. Percutaneous coronary intervention was indicated according to the standards of care, taking into account clinical and anatomical conditions unfavorable for coronary artery bypass graft. The primary end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events, a composite of death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.

Results

Of 226 consecutive patients included, 202 (89.4%) were treated with drug-eluting stents. Mean age was 72.1 years, 41.1% had renal dysfunction, and mean Syntax score and EuroSCORE were 28.9 and 7.4, respectively. Angiographic and procedural success was achieved in 99.6% and 92.9% of patients. At 3 years, the rates of major adverse cardiac events, death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization were 36.2%, 25.2%, 8.4%, 8.0%, respectively. Target lesion revascularization was more frequently observed when ≥2 stents were implanted rather than a single stent (18.5% vs 5.8%, P=.03); and with bare metal stents rather than drug-eluting stents (13.0% vs 7.9%, P=.24). Definite stent thrombosis was observed in 2 patients (0.9%) and probable stent thrombosis in 7 (3.1%). Female sex, impaired left ventricular function, and use of bare metal stents were significantly related with all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

High-risk patients with unprotected left main stenosis treated with percutaneous coronary intervention presented with a high rate of major adverse cardiac events at long-term follow-up. Female sex, impaired left ventricular function, and use of bare metal stents were predictors of poor prognosis.Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org     

Revascularization for unprotected left main stem coronary artery stenosis stenting or surgery

For coronary artery disease with unprotected left main stem (LMS) stenosis, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is traditionally regarded as the "standard of care" because of its well-documented and durable survival advantage. There is now an increasing trend to use drug-eluting stents for LMS stenosis rather than CABG despite very little high-quality data to inform clinical practice. We herein: 1) evaluate the current evidence in support of the use of percutaneous revascularization for unprotected LMS; 2) assess the underlying justification for randomized controlled trials of stenting versus surgery for unprotected LMS; and 3) examine the optimum approach to informed consent. We conclude that CABG should indeed remain the preferred revascularization treatment in good surgical candidates with unprotected LMS stenosis.     

Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Coronary Syndrome

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have more severe CAD and higher mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) than patients without DM. The optimal mode of revascularization—coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—remains controversial in this setting. For patients with DM and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, prompt revascularization of the culprit artery via PCI is generally preferable. In non-ST-elevation ACS, the decision on mode of revascularization is more challenging. Trials comparing CABG with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, bare metal stents, and first-generation drug-eluting stents in DM patients with multivessel have demonstrated decreased mortality in those receiving CABG. On the other hand, trials and retrospective analyses comparing CABG to PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents have not shown a statistically significant mortality benefit favoring CABG. This potentially narrowed that gap between CABG and PCI requires further investigation.     

Bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of unprotected left main disease

Objective

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of de novo unprotected left main disease.

Background

Although CABG is accepted to be standard of care for revascularization of unprotected left main stenosis, PCI is increasingly being used as an alternative primary approach.

Methods

We searched for randomized, controlled trials comparing CABG and PCI for the treatment of unprotected left main disease. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization) were analyzed.

Results

The search strategy identified 4 randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 1,611 patients. Follow-up ranged between 1 and 2 years. There were no significant differences in the risk of death or myocardial infarction between the two treatment modalities. While the risk of stroke was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI (risk ratio (RR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.69, p?=?0.007), the risk of repeat revascularization was higher among patients undergoing PCI (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.43–2.61, p?<?0.001). No relevant statistical heterogeneity across studies could be found.

Conclusion

In this largest series of randomized patients with unprotected left main stenosis to date, the risk of death and myocardial infarction was comparable between CABG and PCI. However, patients undergoing CABG had a higher risk of stroke, whereas patients undergoing PCI were at a higher risk for repeat revascularization.     

Treatment strategies in the left main coronary artery disease associated with acute coronary syndromes

Significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis is not rare and reported 3 to 10% of patients undergoing coronary angiography. Unprotected LMCA intervention is a still clinical challenge and surgery is still going to be a traditional management method in many cardiac centers. With a presentation of drug eluting stent (DES), extensive use of IVUS and skilled operators, number of such interventions increased rapidly which lead to change in recommendation in the guidelines regarding LMCA procedures in the stable angina (Class 2a recommendation for ostial and shaft lesion and class 2b recommendation for distal bifurcation lesion). However, there was not clear consensus about the management of unprotected LMCA lesion associated with acute myocardial infarction (MI) with a LMCA culprit lesion itself or distinct culprit lesion of other major coronary arteries. Surgery could be preferred as an obligatory management strategy even in the high risk patients. With this review, we aimed to demonstrate treatment strategies of LMCA disease associated with acute coronary syndrome, particularly acute myocardial infarction (MI). In addition, we presented a short case series with LMCA lesion and ST elevated acute MI in which culprit lesion placed either in the left anterior descending artery or circumflex artery. We reviewed the current medical literature and propose simple algorithm for management.Abbreviations: CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CX, circumflex artery; DES, drug-eluting stent; IVUS, intravascular ultrasonography; LAD, left anterior descending artery; LMCA, left main coronary artery; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary interventions; RCA, right coronary artery; SYNTAX, synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXUS and cardiac surgery; TIMI, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction