Clinical outcome and quality of life after interventional treatment of left main disease with drug-eluting-stents in comparison to CABG in elderly and younger patients

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft in patients with STEMI and unprotected left main stem disease: A systematic review & meta-analysis

•

The advent of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has caused much debate about the optimal revascularization method for LMCAD.

•

Several studies have previously been conducted comparing PCI versus CABG for LMCAD, however most of these have only taken into account randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while ignoring observational studies.

•

This study takes data from both RCTs and observational studies to obtain a better comparison of the two revascularization techniques.

•

It is the first meta-analysis to report data for various adverse outcomes after 10 years of follow-up.

Introduction

Owing to its large area of supply, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) has the highest mortality rate among coronary artery lesions, resulting in debate about its optimal revascularization technique. This meta-analysis compares percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of LMCAD.

Method

MEDLINE, TRIP, and Cochrane Central databases were queried from their inception until 25 April 2021, to determine MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events), all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke rates post-revascularization for different follow-ups. 7 RCTs and 50 observational studies having 56,701 patients were included. A random-effects model was used with effect sizes calculated as odds ratios (odds ratio, OR).

Results

In the short term (1 year), PCI had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.58, 95% CI 2.47–5.20; p < 0.00001), but lower strokes (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.81; p = 0.002). In the intermediate term (2–5 years), PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.72–4.44; p < 0.00001) and MI (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.17–1.64; p = 0.0002), but significantly lower strokes (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.42–0.70; p < 0.0001). PCI also had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.89–3.52; p < 0.00001) in the long term (≥5 years), while in the very long term (≥10 years), PCI had significantly lower all-cause mortalities (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.96; p = 0.02).

Conclusion

PCI was safer than CABG for patients with stroke for most follow-ups, while CABG was associated with lower repeat revascularizations. However, further research is required to determine PCI’s safety over CABG for reducing post-surgery MI.

Drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left-main coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

To compare follow-up outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left-main coronary artery disease (LMCAD), we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with propensity-score analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through November 2016. Eligible studies were RCTs or observational studies with propensity-score analysis of DES-PCI versus CABG enrolling patients with LMCAD and reporting ≥ 6-month mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization (RRV). Study-specific estimates were combined using inverse variance-weighted averages of logarithmic hazard ratios (HRs) in the random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 5 RCTs and 17 observational studies with propensity-score analysis enrolling a total of 12,387 patients. Pooled analysis demonstrated a significant increase in a composite of death, MI, and RRV (with/without stroke) after DES-PCI (HR, 1.42; P < 0.00001); no significant difference in a composite of death and MI (with/without stroke); no significant differences in mortality and stroke; a strong trend toward an increase in MI after DES-PCI (HR, 1.44; P = 0.05); and significant increases in any (HR, 1.86; P < 0.00001), target-vessel (HR, 3.28; P < 0.00001), and target-lesion RRV (HR, 2.26; P = 0.003) after DES-PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with CABG, DES-PCI for LMCAD was associated with increases in RRV and the composite of death, MI, and RRV (with/without stroke), despite no differences in mortality, MI, stroke, and the composite of death and MI (with/without stroke).

Health-related quality of life in older patients with acute coronary syndrome randomised to an invasive or conservative strategy. The After Eighty randomised controlled trial

Objective

in the After Eighty study (ClinicalTrials.gov.number, NCT01255540), patients aged 80 years or more, with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina pectoris (UAP), were randomised to either an invasive or conservative management approach. We sought to compare the effects of these management strategies on health related quality of life (HRQOL) after 1 year.

Methods

the After Eighty study was a prospective randomised controlled multicenter trial. In total, 457 patients aged 80 or over, with NSTEMI or UAP, were randomised to either an invasive strategy (n = 229, mean age: 84.7 years), involving early coronary angiography, with immediate evaluation for percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft, optimal medical therapy, or to a conservative strategy (n = 228, mean age: 84.9 years). The Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) was used to assess HRQOL at baseline, and at the 1-year follow-up.

Results

baseline SF-36 completion was achieved for 208 and 216 patients in the invasive and conservative groups, respectively. A total of 137 in the invasive group and 136 patients in the conservative group completed the SF-36 form at follow-up. When comparing the changes from follow-up to baseline (delta) no significant changes in quality-of-life scores were observed between the two strategies in any of the domains, expect for a small but statistically significant difference in bodily pain. This difference in only one of the SF-36 subscales may not necessarily be clinically significant.

Conclusion

from baseline to the 1 year follow-up, only minor differences in change of HRQOL as measured by SF-36 were seen by comparing an invasive and conservative strategy.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT01255540.

Percutaneous intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization technique in patients with left main coronary artery disease (CAD) remains controversial. We aimed to compare the long-term performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in treatment of left main CAD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched until November 16, 2016.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and 22 matched observational studies including 22,487 patients and 90,167 patient-years of follow-up were included. PCI was associated with an overall higher risk for the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio (HR), 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.77), mainly driven by higher rates of myocardial infarction (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.22-2.34) and revascularization (HR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.86-4.22). The overall risks for all-cause death (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20), cardiac death (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.69-1.59), stroke (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.33-1.24), and the composite safety endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.16) were similar between PCI and CABG. Stratified analysis based on stent types showed that the increased risk for myocardial infarction associated with PCI was only evident in patients with bare-metal stents or early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), but not newer-generation DES. Stratified analyses based on study designs showed largely similar findings with the overall analyses, except for a significantly higher incidence of myocardial infarction in adjusted studies (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.45) but a trend toward higher incidence in randomized trials (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.85-2.27) associated with PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CABG, PCI with newer-generation DES might be a safe alternative revascularization strategy for treatment of left main CAD, but is associated with more repeat revascularization.

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions or coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease in octogenarians (from a Drug-Eluting stent for LefT main Artery registry substudy)

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is an accepted alternative to surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease, but the long-term outcome in elderly patients is unclear. Aim of our study was to compare the clinical outcomes of octogenarians with ULMCA disease treated either with PCI with drug-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The primary study end point was the composite of death, cerebrovascular accident, and myocardial infarction at follow-up. A total of 304 consecutive patients with ULMCA stenosis treated with PCI or CABG and aged ≥80 years were selected and analyzed in a large multinational registry. Two hundred eighteen were treated with PCI and 86 with CABG. During the hospitalization, a trend toward a higher mortality rate was reported in PCI-treated patients (3.5% vs 7.3%, p = 0.32). At a median follow-up of 1,088 days, the incidence of the primary end point was similar in the 2 groups (32.6% vs 30.2%, p = 0.69). Incidence of target vessel revascularization at follow-up was higher in PCI-treated patients (10% vs 4.2%, p = 0.05). At multivariate analysis, left ventricular ejection fraction was the only independent predictor of the primary end point (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 0.98, p = 0.001). After adjustment with propensity score, the revascularization strategy was not significantly correlated to the incidence of the primary end point (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.71, p = 0.95). In octogenarians, no difference was observed in the occurrence of the primary end point after PCI or CABG for the treatment of ULMCA disease. However, the rate of target vessel revascularization was higher in the PCI group.

Treatment of coronary de novo bifurcation lesions with DCB only strategy

OBJECTIVES

This observational study investigated the value of drug-coated balloons (DCB) only strategy in bifurcation lesions in a consecutive series of all comer percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

Local application of paclitaxcel by DCB has clinical benefits in various settings including coronary bifurcations. While so far most bifurcation studies investigated sequential application of DCBs to the main (MB) and side branch (SB) with stenting of the MB, we report first results after DCB intervention without additional stenting of the MB or SB.

METHODS

We performed 39 consecutive DCB only interventions in de novo bifurcation lesions with SB ≥ 2 mm and scheduled follow-up angiography after 4 months. Patients refusing angiography had telephone follow-up.

RESULTS

Follow-up angiograms were obtained in 30 out of 39 DCB only interventions. 33.3 % were located in the left main (LM) bifurcation, 28.2 % in left anterior descending (LAD), 20.5 % in left circumflex (LCX) and 17.9 % in the right coronary artery. Four months after index procedure no patient had died, experienced myocardial infarction or stroke. Follow-up angiograms showed restenosis in 3 out of 30 interventions (10 %), 2 developing in the distal main (6.7 %) and 1 in the SB (3.3 %). All three patients had been treated for LM/LAD/LCX bifurcations and suffered from most severe coronary artery disease, but had not been eligible for CABG for various reasons. Target lesion revascularization was performed in 3 out of 39 patients consistent with a MACE rate of 7.7 %.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of de novo bifurcation lesions with DCB only intervention without additional stenting is a safe therapy with low rates of restenosis and TLR.

Short-term outcome of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate safety and efficacy of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BVS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

According to the current guidelines, drug-eluting stents are the treatment of choice in patients with STEMI. BVS represents a new technology capable to restore the native vessel vasomotion and potentially avoiding long-term limitations such as stent thrombosis.

METHODS

From October 2012 to May 2013, patients with evidence of STEMI eligible for BVS implantation were included in this study. Exclusion criteria were not defined.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients, respectively 31 lesions, were treated. Procedural success was achieved in 97%. Two major adverse cardiac events occurred during hospitalization and follow-up: one patient with cardiogenic shock at the index procedure subsequently died. One patient suffered from instable angina with need for interventional revascularization of a previously untreated vessel. One target vessel failure as a consequence of an intra-procedural dissection was seen. However, no target lesion failure was noted. During 132.7 ± 68.7 days of follow-up none of the patients died.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that implantation of BVS in STEMI patients is feasible in this small cohort of highly selected patients. Further evaluation in randomized-controlled trials is needed.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes after PCI for acute coronary syndrome in unprotected left main coronary artery disease: insights from the Swiss Acute Left Main Coronary Vessel Percutaneous Management (SALVage) study

AIMS

Unprotected left main (ULM) coronary artery disease is encountered in 3%-10% of coronary angiograms and is associated with high mortality. The survival of patients with ULM disease presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) depends on different variables and is lowest in those with cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of the present study was to estimate the impact of baseline characteristics on the subsequent clinical outcome in patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of ULM for ACS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-four patients were retrieved from our database and followed by phone or physician visit. Patients were classified into two groups according to their presentation (CS/STEMI group: patients presenting with CS or ST-elevation myocardial infarction; NSTEMI/UA group: patients with non-STEMI or unstable angina). Data collected were baseline characteristics, procedural information, and clinical outcome. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 6-month follow-up. The secondary end point was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularisation, i.e., major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Kaplan-Meier curves were computed for survival. Logistic regression determined that hypercholesterolaemia (OR 6.22, p=0.03), high pre-procedural TIMI score (OR 3.89, p=0.01), preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 1.07, p=0.01) and LM as culprit lesion (OR 8.57, p=0.01) protected against development of CS. Primary outcome occurred in 44% of patients in the CS/STEMI group compared to 6% in the NSTEMI/UA group (p<0.001). MACE were observed in 30 patients (48%) of the CS/STEMI group and in 12 patients (19%) of the NSTEMI/UA group (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Acute coronary syndrome due to critical ULM stenosis is associated with high mortality even after successful PCI. Patients presenting with CS or STEMI are at particular risk.