Long-term prognostic value of risk scores after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery: A pooled analysis of the ISAR-LEFT-MAIN and ISAR-LEFT-MAIN 2 randomized clinical trials

Technical Approaches to Left Main Coronary Intervention: Contemporary Best Practices

Left main percutaneous coronary intervention is an acceptable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting, and in experienced hands, excellent procedural results can be obtained. A systematic approach to stenting and meticulous attention to detail are required. For most lesions, a single-stent provisional approach is sufficient, but for the more complex lesion, a 2-stent technique is required. Herein, the optimal approach to left main lesion assessment and percutaneous intervention is described.

Left Main Disease: What Is the Correct Approach to Revascularization?

Percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main coronary artery has evolved through registries and meta analyses, supported by results from the EXCEL [Everolimus-Eluting Stents (EES) or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease] and NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trials as an acceptable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with low and intermediate Syntax scores. Advances in stenting strategies and the availability of larger diameter drug-eluting stents improve patient safety and optimize procedural and patient outcomes.

Current Interventions for the Left Main Bifurcation

Contemporary clinical trials, registries, and meta-analyses, supported by recent results from the EXCEL (Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) and NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trials, have established percutaneous coronary intervention of left main coronary stenosis as a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with low and intermediate SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores. As left main percutaneous coronary intervention gains acceptance, it is imperative to increase awareness for patient selection, risk scoring, intracoronary imaging, vessel preparation, and choice of stenting techniques that will optimize procedural and patient outcomes.

Association of Syntax Score II with Contrast-induced Nephropathy and Hemodialysis Requirement in Patients with ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background and Objectives

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a common complication of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) and is associated with high mortality and morbidity and long hospital stay in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The Syntax Score (SS) has previously been studied in STEMI patients, and it was associated with increased CIN development and long-term mortality. This study investigates a possible relationship between CIN development and Syntax Score II (SSII) and compares SS and SSII by assessing CIN risk in STEMI patients treated with pPCI.

Methods

A total of 1,234 patients who underwent pPCI were divided into 2 groups according to CIN development. Patients with CIN were further divided into 2 groups according to whether or not they required hemodialysis. Reclassification tables, net reclassification improvement, and integrated discriminative improvement methods were used to assess the additive predictive value of SSII for predicting CIN.

Results

In the present study, 166 patients (13.5%) had CIN. Although both SS and SSII were significantly higher in CIN patients, only SSII was an independent predictor of CIN (odds ratio [OR], 1.031; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.012–1.051; p<0.001) and hemodialysis requirement (OR, 1.078; 95% CI, 1.046–1.078; p<0.001). When comparing SSII and SS in their ability to determine CIN risk, we found SSII to have a reclassification improvement of 27.59% (p<0.001) and an integrated discrimination improvement of 9.1% (p<0.001).

Conclusions

The combination of clinical and anatomic variables can more accurately identify patients who are at high risk for CIN after pPCI. While SSII is harder to calculate than SS, it provides better prediction for CIN and hemodialysis requirement than SS.