5-Year Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Lesions

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 Registry)

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 long-term 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.

Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) when treating significant de novo left main coronary artery (LM) stenosis; however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a class IIa indication for unprotected LM disease in selected patients. This analysis compares 5-year clinical outcomes in PCI- and CABG-treated LM patients in the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial, the largest trial in this group to date.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SYNTAX trial randomly assigned 1800 patients with LM or 3-vessel disease to receive either PCI (with TAXUS Express paclitaxel-eluting stents) or CABG. The unprotected LM cohort (N=705) was predefined and powered. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates at 5 years was 36.9% in PCI patients and 31.0% in CABG patients (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.59]; P=0.12). Mortality rate was 12.8% and 14.6% in PCI and CABG patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.32]; P=0.53). Stroke was significantly increased in the CABG group (PCI 1.5% versus CABG 4.3%; hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.92]; P=0.03) and repeat revascularization in the PCI arm (26.7% versus 15.5%; hazard ratio, 1.82 [95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.57]; P<0.01). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between arms in patients with low/intermediate SYNTAX scores but significantly increased in PCI patients with high scores (≥33).

CONCLUSIONS

At 5 years, no difference in overall major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was found between treatment groups. PCI-treated patients had a lower stroke but a higher revascularization rate versus CABG. These results suggest that both treatments are valid options for LM patients. The extent of disease should accounted for when choosing between surgery and PCI, because patients with high SYNTAX scores seem to benefit more from surgery compared with those in the lower tertiles.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00114972.

Comparison by meta-analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with a mean age of ≥70 years

A paucity of published data evaluating the outcomes of older patients (age ≥70 years) undergoing revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery disease is available. We performed aggregate data meta-analyses of the clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days and 12 and 22 months) in studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with a mean age of ≥70 years and unprotected left main coronary artery disease. A comprehensive, time-unlimited literature search to January 31, 2013 identified 10 studies with a total of 2,386 patients (PCI, n = 909; CABG, n = 1,477). Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the random-effects model. The patients in the PCI group were more likely than those in the CABG group to present with acute coronary syndrome (59.6% vs 44.8%, p <0.001). PCI was associated with a shorter hospital stay (4.2 ± 0.8 vs 8.3 ± 0.01 days, p <0.001). No significant differences were found between PCI and CABG for all cause-mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days and 12 and 22 months. However, PCI was associated with lower rates of stroke at 30 days (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.76) and 12 months (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.60) and higher rates of repeat revascularization at 22 months (OR 4.34, 95% CI 2.69 to 7.01). These findings were consistent with the findings from a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥75 years. In conclusion, older patients (age ≥70 years) with unprotected left main coronary artery disease had comparable rates of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events after PCI or CABG. The patients undergoing PCI had a shorter hospital stay and lower rates of early stroke; however, they experienced higher repeat revascularization rates at longer term follow-up.

Unprotected left main coronary stenting as alternative therapy to coronary bypass surgery in high surgical risk acute coronary syndrome patients

Acute coronary syndrome has a high mortality rate that dramatically increases in the presence of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. Over the past decades, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has been commonly accepted as the standard of care for patients with LMCA stenosis and is still considered the first-line treatment in current practice guidelines. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of protected and unprotected LMCA has gained popularity and is increasingly utilized with comparable outcomes to CABG in randomized controlled trials. In-stent restenosis and the need for revascularization provide the main obstacle to LMCA revascularization. The advent of better PCI equipment, stents, ablative devices, intravascular ultrasound, hemodynamic support devices and antithrombotic agents have ignited a renewed interest in the practice of LMCA PCI, especially for high surgical risk patients who are neither candidates nor agreeable to CABG surgery. Herein, we review the studies comparing unprotected LMCA stenting with CABG surgery in regard to 3 main endpoints: mortality, major adverse events and the incidence of repeat revascularization.

Single-stent crossover technique from distal unprotected left main coronary artery to the left circumflex artery

OBJECTIVES

To report the clinical outcomes of single-stenting from distal unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) to the left circumflex artery (LCx).

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention of distal LMCA is usually performed by stenting into the left anterior descending artery (LAD). In some cases, stenting from LMCA to LCx alone is performed.

METHODS

Between April 2002 and April 2011, single-stenting with drug-eluting stents for distal unprotected LMCA disease was performed in 584 patients. Thirty-one patients underwent LMCA-LCx stenting, who were compared with the remaining 553 LMCA-LAD stented patients.

RESULTS

At 3-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between LMCA-LCx and LMCA-LAD stenting groups in major adverse cardiac events (24.1% vs. 19.6%; P = 0.540), cardiac death, and myocardial infarction. A trend toward higher target lesion revascularization (TLR) in the LMCA-LCx stenting group was noted. This was significant when the stented branch was only considered (18.2% vs. 3.0%; P < 0.001). In both TLR subgroups, LCx ostium was frequently involved (83.3% in LMCA-LCx vs. 66.2% in LMCA-LAD TLR subgroups; P = 0.39). The LAD ostium was more frequently involved in LMCA-LCx TLR subgroup (83.3% vs. 21.0%; P < 0.001). On the multivariable Cox regression analysis, LMCA-LCx stenting was an independent predictor of TLR for restenosis at the ostium of the stented branch (HR 6.49; 95% CI 2.27-18.53; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TLR rate at the LCx ostium is high irrespective of LMCA-LCx or LMCA-LAD stenting. The former also seems to be associated with high TLR at the LAD ostium. It may therefore be important to evaluate alternative strategies for treating distal LMCA disease that extends into the LCx but not LAD.

Drug-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of four randomized trials and seventeen observational studies

Background

The clinical application of drug-eluting stents (DES) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) is still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy between DES and CABG for ULMCAD.

Methods

Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched.

Results

Twenty-one studies with 8,413 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The risk was lower in DES than in CABG groups at the early outcomes of death (risk ratio (RR): 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–0.78), cerebrovascular events (RR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.08–0.45) and composite endpoint (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40–0.70); death after 2 years (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.66–0.99), 4 years (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53–0.90), 5 years (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.61–0.95) and their total effect (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.71–0.87); composite endpoint 1 year (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58–0.83), 4 years (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53–0.88), 5 years (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.59–0.92) and their total effect (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.71–0.85). There were no significant differences in the risk for the early outcomes of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.68–1.38), death 1 year (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.57–1.15) and 3 years (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69–1.04), composite endpoint of 2 years (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72–1.09) and 3 years (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73–1.04). Nonetheless, there was a lower risk for revascularization associated with CABG from 1 to 5 years and their total effect (RR: 3.77, 95% CI: 3.35–4.26). There was no difference in death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events or revascularization at 1 year between RCT and observational groups.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis indicates that DES has higher safety but higher revascularization than CABG in patients with ULMCAD in the 5 years after intervention.

Comparison of paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) and everolimus-eluting stents (Xience) in left main coronary artery disease with 3 years follow-up (from the ESTROFA-LM registry)

Evidence regarding therapy with drug-eluting stents in the left main coronary artery (LM) is based mostly on trials performed with first-generation drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes after treatment for unprotected LM disease with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES). The ESTROFA-LM is a multicenter retrospective registry including consecutive patients with unprotected LM disease treated with PES or EES. A total of 770 patients have been included at 21 centers, 415 with treated PES and 355 with EES. Treatment with 2 stents was more frequent with PES (17% vs 10.4%, p = 0.007), whereas intravascular ultrasound was more frequently used with EES (35.2% vs 26%, p = 0.006). The 3-year death and infarction survival rates were 86.1% for PES and 87.3% for EES (p = 0.50) and for death, infarction, and target lesion revascularization were 83.6% versus 82% (p = 0.60), respectively. Definite or probable thrombosis was 1.6% for PES and 1.4% for EES (p = 0.80). The use of 2 stents, age, diabetes, and acute coronary syndromes were independent predictors of mortality. In the subgroup of distal lesions, the use of intravascular ultrasound was an independent predictor of better outcome. Comparison of propensity score-matched groups did not yield differences between the 2 stents. In conclusion, the results of this multicenter registry show comparable safety and efficacy at 3 years for PES and EES in the treatment of LM disease. The use of bifurcation stenting techniques in distal lesions was a relevant independent predictor for events. The use of intravascular ultrasound appears to have a positive impact on patients treated for LM distal disease.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Unprotected Left Main Disease - A Review

There have been over a dozen studies in the drug-eluting stent era comparing the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main disease. These studies have been both randomised and observational in nature. While both methodologies provide important insights, careful consideration of their respective strengths and limitations is imperative in generalising their findings.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial

BACKGROUND

We report the 5-year results of the SYNTAX trial, which compared coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of patients with left main coronary disease or three-vessel disease, to confirm findings at 1 and 3 years.

METHODS

The randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial with nested registries took place in 85 centres in the USA and Europe. A cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist at each centre assessed consecutive patients with de-novo three-vessel disease or left main coronary disease to determine suitability for study treatments. Eligible patients suitable for either treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to either PCI with a first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stent or to CABG. Patients suitable for only one treatment option were entered into either the PCI-only or CABG-only registries. We analysed a composite rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 5-year follow-up by Kaplan-Meier analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00114972.

FINDINGS

1800 patients were randomly assigned to CABG (n=897) or PCI (n=903). More patients who were assigned to CABG withdrew consent than did those assigned to PCI (50 vs 11). After 5 years' follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimates of MACCE were 26·9% in the CABG group and 37·3% in the PCI group (p<0·0001). Estimates of myocardial infarction (3·8% in the CABG group vs 9·7% in the PCI group; p<0·0001) and repeat revascularisation (13·7%vs 25·9%; p<0·0001) were significantly increased with PCI versus CABG. All-cause death (11·4% in the CABG group vs 13·9% in the PCI group; p=0·10) and stroke (3·7%vs 2·4%; p=0·09) were not significantly different between groups. 28·6% of patients in the CABG group with low SYNTAX scores had MACCE versus 32·1% of patients in the PCI group (p=0·43) and 31·0% in the CABG group with left main coronary disease had MACCE versus 36·9% in the PCI group (p=0·12); however, in patients with intermediate or high SYNTAX scores, MACCE was significantly increased with PCI (intermediate score, 25·8% of the CABG group vs 36·0% of the PCI group; p=0·008; high score, 26·8%vs 44·0%; p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

CABG should remain the standard of care for patients with complex lesions (high or intermediate SYNTAX scores). For patients with less complex disease (low SYNTAX scores) or left main coronary disease (low or intermediate SYNTAX scores), PCI is an acceptable alternative. All patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease should be reviewed and discussed by both a cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist to reach consensus on optimum treatment.

FUNDING

Boston Scientific.

A Case of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in an Octogenarian Treated Surgically and Complicated by Myocardial Infarction: Decisions, Techniques, Rescue and Final Outcome

We report on an octogenarian patient presenting with an acute coronary syndrome due to significant left main coronary artery disease and severe ostial stenosis of the left anterior descending artery disease. Emergent bypass graft performed with “beating heart” consisted of left internal mammary graft to the mid left anterior descending artery with an “over-stent” anastomosis. The immediate post-operative phase was simple, however the patient presented on post-operative day 8 with extensive anterior myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Emergent coronary angiogram showed subocclusive anastomotic stenosis. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed on left main, proximal left anterior descending, and proximal circumflex arteries. Subsequently, the patient restored a satisfactory hemodynamic condition. A focus on the importance of decision for management of left main disease especially in octogenarian is presented, along with a review of the pertinent literature.

Meta-analysis of effectiveness of first-generation drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary disease

It is controversial whether drug-eluting stents (DESs) are safe and effective when generalized to "real-world" patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. This meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of DESs to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in real-world patients with unprotected left main coronary artery. We identified comparative, observational, DES versus CABG studies published from January 2000 through May 2012. All studies included ≥100 patients and reported end points with follow-ups ≥6 months. We included adjusted risk estimates and, when no adjusted estimate was available, crude estimates. Data were grouped according to follow-up times of ≤2, ≤3, and >3 years. We included data from 25 observational studies representing 7,230 patients. No differences were detected between CABG and DES in overall mortality (≤2 years, adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 1.28; ≤3 years, adjusted RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.66; >3 years, adjusted RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.17) or in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (≤2 years, adjusted RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.73; ≤3 years, adjusted RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.15; >3 years, adjusted RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.73). Compared to DESs, CABG showed a significant decrease in target vessel revascularization (≤2 years, adjusted RR 3.72, 95% CI 2.50 to 5.52; ≤3 years, adjusted RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.54 to 6.04; >3 years, adjusted RR 3.45, 95% CI 2.14 to 5.57). In conclusion, DESs and CABG were not significantly different in short- and long-term rates of death or major cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events, but DESs showed a higher risk of target vessel revascularization compared to CABG.

Comparative one-year effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients <75 versus ≥75 years with unprotected left main disease (from the CUSTOMIZE Registry)

There is a lack of knowledge on the interaction between age and left main coronary artery revascularization. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease aged <75 versus ≥75 years. Of a total of 894 patients included, 692 (77.4%) were aged <75 years and 202 (23.6%) ≥75 years. PCI was found to be significantly different from CABG with respect to the composite of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow-up in patients aged <75 years (15.5% vs 8.5%, p = 0.01) but not in those aged ≥75 years (16.4% vs 13.9%, p = 0.65). This finding was consistent after statistical adjustment for baseline confounders in the 2 groups (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 4.1, p = 0.016 in younger patients; AHR 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 3.0, p = 0.88 in older patients). In the 2 groups, PCI and CABG showed similar adjusted risks for all-cause death, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction. Target lesion revascularization occurred more frequently in patients aged <75 years treated with PCI compared to CABG (AHR 5.1, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 13.6, p = 0.001) but not in those aged ≥75 years. A significant interaction between age and treatment with regard to major adverse cardiac events was identified (adjusted p for interaction = 0.034). In conclusion, compared to younger patients, elderly patients with left main disease are likely to derive the maximal gain from a less invasive procedure such as PCI.

Percutaneous revascularization of left main: role of imaging, techniques, and adjunct pharmacology

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 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 practice guidelines. However, several critical issues should be properly addressed when pursuing a percutaneous strategy for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis, such as the use of IVUS for procedural guidance, assessment of disease location, optimal technique for distal ULMCA stenosis, risk of stent thrombosis, optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy, and the most appropriate strategy for post-procedure follow up. Multidisciplinary team approach remains essential to provide a balanced information to the patient and to offer the beast treatment option.

Surgical candidacy and selection biases in nonemergent left main stenting: implications for observational studies

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to characterize reasons for surgical ineligibility in patients undergoing nonemergent unprotected left main (ULM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to assess the potential for these reasons to confound comparative effectiveness studies of coronary revascularization.

BACKGROUND

Although both PCI and coronary artery bypass graft surgery are treatments for ULM disease, some patients are not eligible for both treatments, which may result in treatment selection biases.

METHODS

In 101 consecutive patients undergoing nonemergent ULM PCI, mixed methods were used to determine the prevalence of treatment selection dictated by surgical ineligibility and to identify the reasons cited for avoiding coronary artery bypass graft surgery. We then determined whether these reasons were captured by the ACC-NCDR (American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry) Cath-PCI dataset to assess the ability of this registry to account for biases in treatment selection. Finally, the association of surgical eligibility with long-term outcomes after ULM PCI was assessed.

RESULTS

Treatment selection was dictated by surgical ineligibility in over half the ULM PCI cohort with the majority having reasons for ineligibility not captured by the ACC-NCDR. Surgical ineligibility was a significant predictor of mortality after adjustment for Society of Thoracic Surgeons (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2 to 25), EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) (HR: 5.9, 95% CI: 1.3 to 27), or NCDR mortality scores (HR: 6.2, 95% CI: 1.4 to 27).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical ineligibility dictating treatment selection is common in patients undergoing nonemergent ULM PCI, occurs on the basis of risk factors not captured by the ACC-NCDR, and is independently associated with worse long-term outcomes after adjusting for standard risk scores.