Treatment of Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Considering lesion priority and its clinical consequences, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been a treatment of choice for revascularization in patients with significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, However, with remarkable advancements in techniques of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), supporting devices, and adjunctive pharmacologic therapy, PCI with stenting has emerged to be a less invasive and feasible revascularization treatment for these patients. The cumulative evidence suggests that the safety outcomes such as mortality or composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke are similar among PCI and CABG, with the only difference being the rate of repeat revascularization. Based on these data, the current guideline of revascularization of LMCA disease has adopted an increasing off-label experience with stenting and clinical studies and been updated to partly approve PCI as a viable alternative (in level of class IIb) in selected patients. The choice of PCI or CABG for unprotected LMCA disease depends on several clinical and anatomic features, ensuring crucial patient selection to be a cornerstone for achieving favorable long-term outcomes. In patients with very complex anatomic features and concomitant diffuse multivessel disease, CABG is preferred so as to avoid procedural and future thrombotic risks and to provide more complete revascularization. By contrast, in patients with relatively simple LMCA disease, such as ostial/shaft LMCA disease, isolated LMCA disease (with or without one or two-vessel involvement), and LMCA disease with low SYNTAX score, PCI is an alternative, and in some cases a preferred, strategy to reduce surgical risks (eg, stroke and in-hospital events following major surgery). For the future, ongoing large clinical trials might also boost interventional cardiologists to select PCI with stenting as an alternative revascularization strategy for unprotected LMCA disease. This evidence will most likely change the current clinical practice and guidelines of optimal revascularization strategy for unprotected LMCA disease.     

The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Purpose of Review

While coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care, advances in stenting technology and procedural technique are changing the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of severe left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. We review contemporary evidence comparing PCI and CABG for the treatment of severe LMCA disease, discuss optimal techniques during left main PCI, and provide guidance on studied revascularization strategies within specific patient subgroups.

Recent Findings

Results from randomized control trials of patients treated with PCI or CABG for severe LMCA disease demonstrate comparable short- and mid-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke, but increased rates of repeat or target-vessel revascularization after PCI. Though extended follow-up data has suggested lower long-term rates of MI and stroke in patients with severe LMCA disease treated with CABG, results from patients undergoing PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) demonstrate non-inferiority in these outcomes. These findings are generalizable to patients with severe LMCA disease having low to intermediate anatomic complexity. Intravascular ultrasound and double kissing (DK) crush stenting also reduce adverse event rates among patients undergoing left main PCI and improve long-term outcomes.

Summary

In patients with severe LMCA disease having low to intermediate anatomic complexity, both CABG and PCI with second-generation DES are effective methods of revascularization with comparable long-term rates of death, MI, and stroke. The roles of multi-vessel coronary artery disease and anatomic complexity on long-term outcomes after CABG or PCI for severe LMCA disease remain under investigation.

     

Revascularization of Left Main Coronary Artery

Left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease affect 5–7% of patient undergoing coronary angiography and is associated with multivessel CAD in 70% of the cases. Untreated significant LMCA disease is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. CABG is the traditional therapy for revascularization in LMCA disease. PCI is a reasonable alternative mainly in patients with high surgical risk or other specific factors. Drug-eluting stents, improved antiplatelet therapeutic options, atherectomy techniques, IVUS-guidance and improved operator experience have all contributed to the observed improvement in clinical outcomes. Given the large number of variables involved in deciding between PCI and CABG, a heart team should make decisions regarding revascularization of LMCA disease.     

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Vs Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Disease: G-LM Registry

Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) has been the standard of care for revascularization for patients with obstructive unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMCA). There have been multiple randomized and registry data demonstrating the technical and clinical efficacy of PCI in certain patients with ULMCA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of ULMCA PCI as compared to CABG in patients requiring revascularization in three Gulf countries. All ULMCA cases treated by PCI with DES versus CABG were retrospectively identified from 14 centers in 3 Arab Gulf countries (KSA, UAE, and Bahrain) from January 2015 to December 2019. In total, 2138 patients were included: 1222 were treated with PCI versus 916 with CABG. Patients undergoing PCI were older, and had higher comorbidities and mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE). Aborted cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock were reported more in the PCI group at hospital presentation. In addition, lower ejection fractions were reported in the PCI group. In hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) occurred more in patients undergoing CABG than PCI. At median follow-up of 15 months (interquartile range, 30), no difference was observed in freedom from revascularization, MACCE, or total mortality between those treated with PCI and CABG. While findings are similar to Western data registries, continued follow-up will be needed to ascertain whether this pattern continues into latter years.     

SYNTAX评分对无保护左主干病变选择不同血运重建方式的价值研究

目的:应用SYNTAX评分评估冠状动脉(冠脉)无保护左主干病变(ULMCA)的复杂程度及其与临床事件的相关性,探讨冠脉无保护左主干病变患者的最佳血运重建方式。方法:回顾性收集了206例从2003-02至2008-01采用经皮冠脉介入治疗—药物洗脱支架(PCI-DES)和冠脉旁路移植术(CABG)的无保护左主干病变患者,其中CABG组94例,PCI-DES组112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)发生率以及冠脉造影复查情况。结果:①两组患者基本情况、左主干病变特点及SYNTAX评分等方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但CABG组合并三支血管病变多于PCI-DES组,差异有统计学意义[74.47%(70例)vs.41.07%(46例),P<0.01]。②住院期间CABG组的MACCE发生率较PCI-DES组高(P<0.05)。术后3年随访,两组的MACCE发生率及无MACCE生存率比较差异无统计学意义,但PCI-DES组靶血管再次血运重建率明显高于CABG组(P<0.05)。③两组间SYNTAX评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。PCI-DES组中,高积分(≥30.0)患者术后3年MACCE发生率明显高于低积分(<30.0)患者(P<0.01),而术后3年无MACCE生存率低于低积分患者(P<0.01)。CABG组中,高积分和低积分患者术后3年MACCE发生率及无MACCE生存率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。高积分患者中,术后3年PCI-DES组MACCE发生率高于CABG组,无MACCE生存率低于CABG组(P均<0.05)。低积分患者中,术后3年PCI-DES组MACCE发生率低于CABG组,无MACCE生存率PCI-DES组高于CABG组(P均<0.05),差异均有统计学意义。结论:用SYNTAX评分指导无保护左主干病变的血管重建方式选择有重要价值,但在不同的患者中,仍应结合临床特征和冠脉病变特点选择恰当的血运重建术。     

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。     

Favorable Long-Term Survival in Patients Undergoing Stent PCI of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Compared to Predicted Short-Term Prognosis of CABG Estimated by EuroSCORE: Clinical Determinants of Long-Term Outcome

Aims/Methods: The long-term outcome of patients (pts) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) is unclear so far . We prospectively investigated the outcome of 102 consecutive patients who underwent stent PCI of unprotected LMCA. Patients were divided according to clinical indication for PCI: stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (N = 60), NSTEMI (N = 18), STEMI (N = 24). Expected in-hospital mortality of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was calculated using the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation ( EuroSCORE ) and compared to the observed survival rate during long-term follow-up (mean 1.8 ± 1.2 years).
Results: The observed 30-day mortality was 1.7% (1/60 pts) in patients with stable CAD, 11% (2/18 pts) in NSTEMI patients, and 13% (3/24 pts) in STEMI patients. The observed mortality was lower than the predicted mortality of CABG as calculated by the logistic EuroSCORE. Using receiver-operator characteristics curves (ROC), EuroSCORE demonstrated a high predictive value for both 30-day mortality as well as 1-year mortality (AUC > 0.8; P < 0.01). Prognostically relevant patient related factors (P < 0.01) included severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 3.24), ACS (HR 3.18), STEMI (HR: 3.01), Killip class IV (HR 7.69), occurrence of neoplastic disease (HR 3.97), and elevated CRP (HR 3.86).
Conclusions: LMCA-PCI was associated with lower long-term mortality rates compared to the estimated mortality of CABG. This prospective observational study suggests that DES-PCI of unprotected LMCA in "all-comers" can be carried out with reasonable risk .     

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.     

Left main coronary stenting in a non surgical octogenarian population: a possible approach

Coronary artery bypass grafting is conventionally considered the standard treatment for significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. The management of LMCA disease in octogenarians is however still debated. The aim of this study was to appreciate the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for LMCA disease in octogenarians who were denied for surgical revascularization. The study included 70 consecutive patients ≥80 years of age who had undergone PCI for the treatment of LMCA and who were primary denied by our center's heart team for surgical revascularization. Mean age was 83.4±2.6 years. Mean Euroscore was 21.1±16.7 and mean Syntax score was 28.6±8.7. Overall in-hospital mortality was 11%. Mean follow-up time was 30.5±24.2 months. Overall mortality at the end of follow-up was 28%. Cardiac death was found in 18 patients and 2 patients died from terminal renal insufficiency. One patient (2%) presented with a new STEMI, 7 (11.3%) with a new non-STEMI, 13 (21%) with heart failure, and 2 (3.2%) had minor hemorrhage. There was a percutaneous target vessel revascularization in 6 (10%) patients. During follow-up, the total major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular event (MACCE including death, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), or stroke) was 27.4%. Stent implantation was relatively safely applied for the treatment of LMCA disease in octogenarians who were refused for surgery and who represented a high risk population. Despite a non-negligible rate of MACCE, the clinical long term outcome seems correct for this specific population with heavy basal status.     

二代支架时代数据中糖尿病对无保护左主干患者不同血运重建术预后的影响

目的:在二代支架时代,糖尿病对不同血运重建策略治疗无保护左主干冠状动脉疾病患者的影响尚未可知。方法:回顾性入选823例无保护左主干冠状动脉疾病的患者,其中接受二代药物洗脱支架(DES)置入治疗的患者331例(糖尿病患者,n=99;非糖尿病患者,n=232),接受冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)患者492例(糖尿病患者,n=127;非糖尿病患者,n=365)。我们根据不同的血运重建策略比较了糖尿病对临床结果的影响。结果:在接受血运重建的无保护左主干病变患者中,糖尿病患者占27.5%(226/823)。经过平均25.3个月的随访后发现,在接受DES治疗的人群中,糖尿病患者与非糖尿病患者的全因死亡率、心源性死亡率、血运重建发生率、卒中和主要不良心脑血管事件的发生率没有显著差异。然而,在全因死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合终点(糖尿病组21.5%vs.非糖尿病7.2%,P=0.001)及心肌梗死发生率(糖尿病组15.4%vs.非糖尿病组1.6%,P<0.001)中,糖尿病患者明显高于非糖尿病患者。在接受CABG治疗的群体中,糖尿病组和非糖尿病组所有临床终点发生率相似。结论:在二代药物洗脱支架治疗无保护左主干病变的患者中,合并糖尿病的患者较非糖尿病组预后较差,在接受CABG的患者中,糖尿病和非糖尿病组预后相似。     

The Association of Previous Revascularization With In-Hospital Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or no previous revascularization undergoing primary PCI.BackgroundLimited data exist regarding door-to-balloon times and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients with a history of CABG or PCI undergoing primary PCI.MethodsWe examined 15,628 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI at 297 sites in the United States. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to compare door-to-balloon time delays >90 min and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE).ResultsPatients with previous CABG were significantly older and more likely to have multiple comorbidities (p < 0.0001). Previous CABG was associated with a lower likelihood of a door-to-balloon time ≤90 min compared with patients with no previous revascularization. However, no significant differences in door-to-balloon times were noted between patients with previous PCI and those without previous revascularization. The unadjusted MACCE risk was significantly higher in patients with a history of CABG compared with patients without previous revascularization (odds ratio: 1.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 2.31). However, after multivariable risk adjustment, there were no significant differences in MACCE risk between the 2 groups. No significant differences in in-hospital outcomes were seen in patients with a previous PCI and those without previous revascularization.ConclusionsIn a large cohort of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, patients with previous CABG were more likely to have reperfusion delays, yet risk-adjusted, in-hospital outcomes were similar to those without previous revascularization. No significant differences in reperfusion timeliness and in-hospital outcomes were seen in patients with a history of PCI compared with patients without previous revascularization.     

Impact of SYNTAX Score on 10-Year Outcomes After Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the long-term impact of SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (SS) on differential outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease.BackgroundThe very long term prognostic effect of SS on mortality and major cardiovascular events after LMCA revascularization is still undetermined.MethodsIn the MAIN-COMPARE (Ten-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) registry, patients with baseline SS measurements were analyzed. The 10-year rates of all-cause mortality, the composite of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke, and target vessel revascularization after PCI or CABG were compared according to baseline SS.ResultsAmong 1,580 patients with baseline SS, 547 patients (34.6%) had low SS (≤22), 350 (22.2%) had intermediate SS (23 to 32), and 683 (43.2%) had high SS (≥33). In patients with low to intermediate SS, the adjusted 10-year risks for death and serious composite outcome were similar between the PCI group and the CABG group. However, in patients with high SS, PCI with stenting, compared with CABG, was associated with a higher risk for death (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.92; p = 0.048) and serious composite outcome (hazard ratio: 1.27; 95% confidence interval: 0.94 to 1.74; p = 0.123). In each revascularization group, conventional tertiles of SS had a differential prognostic impact on 10-year clinical outcomes in the PCI arm but not in the CABG arm.ConclusionsIn this 10-year extended follow-up of patients undergoing LMCA revascularization, CABG showed a clear prognostic benefit over PCI in patients with high anatomic complexity measured by SS at baseline. The discriminative capacity of SS on long-term outcomes was relevant in the PCI group but not in the CABG group. (Ten-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease [MAIN-COMPARE]; NCT02791412)     

Percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: Mid-term outcomes of a single-center observational study

BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an appropriate alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for revascularization of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease in patients with low-to–intermediate anatomic complexity or when the patient refuses CABG even after adequate counselling by heart team. We assessed the safety, in-hospital and mid-term outcomes of ULMCA stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) in Indian patients.MethodsOur study was a retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone ULMCA PCI at a tertiary center, between March 2011 and February 2020. Clinical characteristics, procedural data, and follow-up data were analyzed. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) during the hospital stay and at follow-up. The median follow-up was 2.8 years (interquartile range: 1.5–4.1 years).Results661 patients (mean age, 63.5 ± 10.9 years) had undergone ULMCA PCI. The mean SYNTAX score was 27.9 ± 10.4 and the mean LVEF was 58.0 ± 11.1%. 3-vessel disease and distal lesions were noted in 54% and 70.6% patients, respectively. The incidence of in-hospital MACCE was 1.8% and the MACCE during follow-up was 11.5% (including 48 [8.4%] cardiac deaths). The overall survival rates after one, three, five, and nine years were 94%, 88%, 84%, and 82%, respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that age >65 years and high SYNTAX scores were independent predictors of mid to long-term mortality.ConclusionULMCA PCI with DES is safe and has acceptable in-hospital and mid-term outcomes among patients with low-to–intermediate SYNTAX score.     

One‐Year Follow‐Up of Nonrandomized 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 ≥75 Years)

Purpose: The present observational study compares in‐hospital and 12‐month clinical outcomes in elderly patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease treated either with coronary artery bypass grafting or drug‐eluting stent. Methods: From January 2004 to December 2007, 211 patients (pts) with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis, aged 75 or older, underwent coronary revascularization either with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (106 pts) or drug‐eluting stent (DES) (105 pts). The decision to treat with CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was dependent on the patient's and the physician's choice. The occurrence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE: death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke) and revascularizations was recorded after 1 year of follow‐up. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed using a propensity score method to take potential baseline differences between groups into account. Results: In‐hospital MACCE rates were 5.7% and 3.8% in the CABG and PCI groups, respectively (P = 0.748). After 1 year of follow‐up, these rates were, respectively, 13.9% and 14.9% (P = 0.841), and rates for target vessel revascularization at 12 months were 1.0% and 13.9% (P < 0.001). The PCI group was significantly associated with older age, dyslipidemia, history of cancer, high Euroscore, elevated creatininemia, single‐vessel disease, fewer chronic occlusions of the left anterior descending artery, and more LMCA stenosis ≥70%. The multivariate logistic regression analysis was adjusted for age, diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction, Euroscore, and plasma creatininemia and stratified on the score of propensity to be treated with PCI. In the subgroup below median propensity score, the adjusted odds ratio for 1‐year MACCE was OR = 0.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.14 to 5.98; P = 0.924) whereas OR was 0.16 (0.04–0.69; P = 0.013) in the subgroup above median propensity score. Conclusions: In patients with a high probability of being treated with PCI (older age, high Euroscore, high creatininemia, single‐vessel disease, …), the 1‐year risk of MACCE was significantly lower in PCI‐ than in CABG‐treated subjects. No significant difference was found in other cases.     

Stenting of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenoses: Immediate and Late Outcomes

Objectives. We examined the immediate and long-term outcomes after stenting of unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenoses in patients with normal left ventricular (LV) function.Background. Left main coronary artery disease is regarded as an absolute contraindication for coronary angioplasty. Recently, several reports on protected or unprotected LMCA stenting, or both, suggested the possibility of percutaneous intervention for this prohibited area.Methods. Forty-two consecutive patients with unprotected LMCA stenoses and normal LV function were treated with stents. The post-stent antithrombotic regimens were aspirin and ticlopidine; 14 patients also received warfarin. Patients were followed very closely with monthly telephone interviews and follow-up angiography at 6 months.Results. The procedural success rate was 100%, with no episodes of subacute thrombosis regardless of anticoagulation regimen. Six-month follow-up angiography was performed in 32 of 34 eligible patients. Angiographic restenosis occurred in seven patients (22%, 95% confidence interval 7% to 37%); five patients subsequently underwent elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), and two patients were treated with rotational atherectomy plus adjunct balloon angioplasty. The only death occurred 2 days after elective CABG for treatment of in-stent restenosis. The other patients (without angiographic follow-up) remain asymptomatic.Conclusions. Stenting of unprotected LMCA stenoses may be a safe and effective alternative to CABG in carefully selected patients with normal LV function. Further studies in larger patient populations are needed to assess late outcome.     

Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the impact of lesion site (ostial or shaft vs. distal bifurcation) on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease.BackgroundLong-term comparative data after PCI and CABG for LMCA disease according to lesion site are limited.MethodsPatients from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry were analyzed, comparing adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality [a composite outcome of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke] and target vessel revascularization) between PCI and CABG according to LMCA lesion location during a median follow-up period of 12.0 years.ResultsIn overall population, the adjusted risks for death and serious composite outcome were higher after PCI than after CABG for distal bifurcation disease, which was mainly separated beyond 5 years. These outcomes were not different for ostial or shaft disease. When comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) and CABG, the adjusted risks for death and serious composite outcome progressively diverged beyond 5 years after DES compared with CABG for distal bifurcation disease (death: hazard ratio: 1.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 2.59; composite outcome: hazard ratio: 1.94; 95% confidence interval: 1.35 to 2.79). This difference was driven mainly by PCI with a 2-stent technique for distal bifurcation. In contrast, the adjusted risks for these outcomes were similar between DES and CABG for ostial or shaft disease.ConclusionsAmong patients with distal LMCA bifurcation disease, CABG showed lower mortality and serious composite outcome rates compared with DES beyond 5 years. However, there were no between-group differences in these outcomes among patients with ostial or shaft LMCA disease.     

Meta-analysis Comparing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Disease

Outcomes of patients presenting with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) with multivessel coronary disease (MVD) and/or unprotected left main coronary artery disease (CAD) revascularized with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is not well defined. MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE/Ovid were queried for studies that investigated PCI vs CABG in this disease subset. The primary outcome was major cardiac adverse events (MACE) at 30 days and long-term follow-up (3-5 years). The final analysis included 9 studies with a total of 9299 patients. No significant difference was observed between PCI and CABG in 30 days MACE (risk ratio [RR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-2.39, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. A meta-regression analysis revealed patients with a history of PCI had higher risk of MACE with PCI as compared with CABG. At long-term follow-up, PCI compared with CABG was associated with higher risk of MACE (RR 1.52; 95% CI 1.28-1.81), myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, while no difference was observed in the risk of stroke and all-cause mortality. In patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD or unprotected left main CAD, no differences were observed in the clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG at 30 days follow-up. With long-term follow-up, PCI was associated with a higher risk of MACE.     

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.     

Stenting for Unprotected and Protected Left Main Stem Disease: A Comparison of Short- and Long-term Outcome

Left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis is usually treated with coronary artery bypass surgery. However, in high risk surgical patients, coronary stenting may be advantageous. We reviewed the records of all 16 patients who had undergone this procedure in our institution. Group I (nine patients, eight males, mean age 64.6 years) had protected LMCA disease. Group II (seven patients, six males, mean age 69.5 years) had unprotected LMCA disease. Procedural success was achieved in 15 patients. Outcome was divided into short-term (in hospital), and long-term events. The mean follow-up for both groups was 16.9 months and 9 months respectively. Three patients died (two in group II). Three patients had repeat revascularization procedure (group I). Six patients were asymptomatic (two in group I), and four had a significant improvement in angina symptoms. LMCA stenting is a relatively safe and effective revascularization procedure for patients with either protected or unprotected LMCA disease at high risk for surgery.     

Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery with percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of consecutive, selected patients treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: Although recent data suggest that PCI with DES provides better clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stenting for ULMCA disease, there is a paucity of data comparing PCI with DES to CABG. METHODS: Since April 2003, when DES first became available at our institution, 123 patients underwent CABG, and 50 patients underwent PCI with DES for ULMCA disease. RESULTS: High-risk patients (Parsonnet score >15) comprised 46% of the CABG group and 64% of the PCI group (p = 0.04). The 30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate for CABG and PCI was 17% and 2% (p < 0.01), respectively. The mean follow-up was 6.7 +/- 6.2 months in the CABG group and 5.6 +/- 3.9 months in the PCI group (p = 0.26). The estimated MACCE-free survival at six months and one year was 83% and 75% in the CABG group versus 89% and 83% in the PCI group (p = 0.20). By multivariable Cox regression, Parsonnet score, diabetes, and CABG were independent predictors of MACCE. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher percentage of high-risk patients, PCI with DES for ULMCA disease was not associated with an increase in immediate or medium-term complications compared with CABG. Our data suggest that a randomized comparison between the two revascularization strategies for ULMCA may be warranted.