Comparison between coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (the Bologna Registry)

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

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.

Outcomes of Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Single-Centre Experience

Introduction

When the baseline anatomical syntax score-I (SxSI) is more than or equal to 33, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main (UPLM) is discouraged and considered as high-risk of adverse cardiac events. We designed this study to compare the outcomes of UPLM-PCI between the low to intermediate-syntax score (SxSI^low/^int.) group (defined as SxSI <33) and the high-syntax score (SxSI^high) group (defined as SxSI more than or equal 33) with a subanalysis to explore the predictive role of intravascular images (IVI).

Methods

The study is a retrospective observational analysis in a prospective cohort. The prospectively gathered data of consecutive patients, who were enrolled from January 2018 to December 2018, were analyzed at 1-year regarding the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). An independent committee calculated the SxSI and reviewed all the events.

Results

Baseline data of 2144 patients were considered for analysis. 1245 underwent PCI and 32 (2.57%) had PCI of UPLM; of these, 24 (75%) were in SxSI^low/^int. group and 8 (25%) in SxSI^high group. The mean SxSI was 20.3 ± 6.5 and 37.1 ± 4.9 for SxSI^low/^int. and SxSI^high groups, respectively. Compared with patients in the SxSI^low/^int., patients in SxSI^high group had a greater syntax score-II (<0.0001), which reflects the expected 4-year mortality after PCI by combining the SxSI and clinical variables.Interestingly, despite the fact that the proportion of subjects who sustained MACCE was almost three times more among the SxSIhigh compared to their SxSIlow/int. counterparts [1 (12.5%) vs. 1 (4.2%), P = 0.444], this difference was not statistically significant.It was noted that a higher proportion of patients in whom intravascular imaging (IVI) was not used to guide PCI sustained MACCE compared with that in whom IVI was utilized (2 [50%] vs. [0%], P = 0.012). There is a strong, negative, statistically significant association between the use of IVI and the occurrence of MAACE (Phi=-0.681), which reflects that the use of imaging is associated with significantly lower probability of developing MACCE.

Conclusion

As demonstrated in this real-world cohort, PCI of UPLM provides excellent outcome at one year regardless of the initial anatomical syntax score. Furthermore, it appears that IVI utilization during the index PCI procedure of UPLM is a potent and independent predictor of MACCE.

Impact of Elective, Uncomplicated Target Lesion Revascularization on Cardiac Mortality After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

This study sought to investigate the impact of elective, uncomplicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) on long-term cardiac mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. Consecutive patients undergoing PCI for ULMCA disease between January 2003 and December 2015 in 1 interventional center in Northern Italy were included. Patients presenting with cardiogenic shock, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI), as well as those undergoing urgent or complicated TLR were excluded. The primary endpoint of the study was cardiac mortality. Among the 418 patients fulfilling the study criteria, 79 (18.46%) underwent elective, uncomplicated TLR. After a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there were 23 cardiac deaths among patients undergoing elective, uncomplicated TLR versus 50 in patients not undergoing TLR. After adjusting for possible confounders, TLR was an independent predictor of cardiac mortality (Hazard ratio [HZ] = 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 3.49; p = 0.03). Patients undergoing TLR had also significantly higher rates of the composite of cardiac death, MI and stroke compared with the no TLR group (adjusted HR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.72). In conclusion, elective, uncomplicated TLR after PCI of ULMCA disease is associated with increased risk of long-term cardiac mortality. Reducing the risk of TLR after PCI of ULMCA disease may potentially improve the survival of these patients.

Trials Comparing Percutaneous And Surgical Myocardial Revascularization: A Review

INTRODUCTION

Ischemic heart diseases are the major leading cause of death worldwide. Revascularization procedures dramatically reduced the overall risk for death related to acute coronary syndromes. Two kinds of myocardial revascularization can grossly be outlined: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical coronary artery bypass graft intervention (CABG). The net clinical benefit coming from these two kinds of procedures is still under debate.

METHODS

We have traced the state-of-the-art background about myocardial revascularization procedures by comparing the most important trials dealing with the evaluation of percutaneous interventions versus a surgical approach to coronary artery diseases.

RESULTS

Both PCI and CABG have become effective treatments for revascularization of patients suffering from advanced CAD. The advance in technology and procedural techniques made PCI an attractive and, to some extent, more reliable procedure in the context of CAD. However, there are still patients that cannot undergo PCI and have to be rather directed towards CABG.

CONCLUSION

CABG still remains the best strategy for the treatment of multiple vessel CAD due to improved results in term of survival and freedom from reintervention. Anyway, a systematic, multidisciplinary approach to revascularization is the fundamental behaviour to be chased in order to effectively help the patients in overcoming its diseases. The creation of the "heart team" seems to be a good option for the correct treatment of patients suffering from stable and unstable CAD.

Imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention for optimizing outcomes

Angiography is the current gold standard for imaging during percutaneous coronary interventions but has significant limitations. Catheter-based intravascular imaging techniques such as intravascular ultrasound and the more recent optical coherence tomography have the potential to overcome these limitations and thus optimize clinical outcomes. In this update, we discussed the current applications of the available imaging techniques, existing evidence, continuing unmet needs, and potential areas for further research.

[Angioplasty of the unprotected left main trunk: short and medium term outcomes]

Introduction

Notre but était de déterminer le devenir des patients traités par angioplastie du tronc commun non protégé de l'artère coronaire gauche.

Méthodes

Une étude rétrospective a porté sur tous les patients traités par angioplastie du tronc commun non protégé de la coronaire gauche entre janvier 2004 et juin 2009. Les données cliniques et angiographiques ont été recueillies sur les dossiers médicaux, complétées par un entretien téléphonique avec le patient ou ses médecins.

Résultats

Quarante-huit patients d'âge moyen de 68,50±14,06 ans ont été inclus. Les syndromes coronariens aigus étaient le principal motif d'admission (75%). Les lésions du tronc étaient distales (77,1%) et pluritronculaires (64,6%). Un stent nu a été implanté chez 73% des patients. Après un suivi moyen de 22 mois, le taux d'événements cardiovasculaires majeurs a été de 31,3% dont 20,8% de resténose et 14,6% de revascularisation. Le taux de décès hospitalier a été de 4,2%. Les facteurs prédictifs d'événements cardiovasculaires majeurs ont été un EuroSCORE ≥ 10 et les antécédents cardiovasculaires.

Conclusion

L'angioplastie du tronc commun est une alternative dans les situations d'urgence ou en cas de contre-indication de la chirurgie. Le risque évolutif des patients est lié à leur risque global avant angioplastie.

Meta-analysis study comparing percutaneous coronary intervention/drug eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass surgery of unprotected left main coronary artery disease: Clinical outcomes during short-term versus long-term (> 1 year) follow-up

BACKGROUND

Results on the safety and long-term efficacy of drug-eluting stent placement in unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) compared with those of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) remain inconsistent across randomized clinical trials and recent meta-analysis studies. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and safety over short- and long-term follow-ups by conducting a meta-analysis of large pooled data from randomized controlled trials and up-to-date observational studies.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and reference lists of related articles was performed for studies conducted in the drug-eluting stent era, to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with CABG in ULMCAD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, all-cause mortality, and revascularization after at least 1-year follow-up. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were considered secondary outcomes. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of studies with ≥5 years follow-up was performed to test the sustainability of clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies were extracted with 21,832 patients (10,424 in PCI vs 11,408 in CABG). Pooled analysis demonstrated remarkable differences in long-term follow-up (≥1 year) MACCE (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.27-1.59), P < .00001), repeat revascularization (OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.41-3.73, P < .00001), and MI (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.14-1.53, P = .0002), favoring CABG over PCI. However, stroke risk was significantly lower in the PCI group. Subgroup analysis of studies with ≥5 years follow-up showed similar outcomes except for the noninferiority outcome of MACCE in the PCI arm. However, the PCI group proved good safety profile after a minimum of 30-day follow-up with lower MACCE outcome.

CONCLUSION

PCI for ULMCAD can be applied with attentiveness in carefully selected patients. MI and the need for revascularization remain drawbacks and areas of concern among previous studies. Nonetheless, it has been proven safe during short-term follow-up.

Clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary revascularization vs coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of 6 randomized trials and 4,686 patients

Some but not all randomized controlled trials (RCT) have suggested that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD). We therefore aimed to compare the risk of all-cause mortality between PCI and CABG in patients with ULMCAD in a pairwise meta-analysis of RCT.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing PCI vs CABG for the treatment of ULMCAD were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings.

RESULTS

Six trials including 4,686 randomized patients were identified. After a median follow-up of 39 months, there were no significant differences between PCI vs CABG in the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.30) or cardiac mortality. However, a significant interaction for cardiac mortality (P_interaction= .03) was apparent between randomization arm and SYNTAX score, such that the relative risk for mortality tended to be lower with PCI compared with CABG among patients in the lower SYNTAX score tertile, similar in the intermediate tertile, and higher in the upper SYNTAX score tertile. Percutaneous coronary intervention compared with CABG was associated with a similar long-term composite risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82-1.37), with fewer events within 30 days after PCI offset by fewer events after 30 days with CABG (P_interaction < .0001). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with greater rates of unplanned revascularization compared with CABG (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.47-2.07).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing revascularization for ULMCAD, PCI was associated with similar rates of mortality compared with CABG at a median follow-up of 39 months, but with an interaction effect suggesting relatively lower mortality with PCI in patients with low SYNTAX score and relatively lower mortality with CABG in patients with high SYNTAX score. Both procedures resulted in similar long-term composite rates of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with PCI offering an early safety advantage and CABG demonstrating greater durability.

Assessing the left main stem in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. What is "significant"? Function, imaging or both?

Revascularization of significant Left Main Stem (LMS) disease improves clinical outcomes. This can be achieved through either Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous coronary intervention. Defining a significant stenosis of the LMS can be challenging and debatable, as most data have been derived using angiographic assessment alone, with a threshold of 50% luminal stenosis used as a marker of functional significance. The use of adjunctive technologies like Intravascular Ultrasound and Fractional Flow Reserve has improved our ability to accurately assess the anatomical severity and physiological significance of coronary artery stenoses, much more so, than can be achieved through conventional angiography alone. An improved assessment of LMS disease through these adjunctive techniques offers procedural and clinical benefits. Rather than focus on the preferred methods of revascularisation, this article aims to highlight the common pitfalls and misconceptions in the assessment of LMS stenoses. We also propose a simple algorithm for the assessment of LMS disease to help guide revascularisation decisions.

Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is as effective and safe as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PCI and CABG in left main coronary disease.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus and relevant references for RCTs (inception through, November 20, 2016 without language restrictions) and performed meta-analysis using random-effects model. All-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization rate, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were the measured outcomes.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total population of 4700 were analyzed. There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 30-day, one-year, and five-year (1.8% vs 1.1%; OR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.26-1.39; P=.23; I² =9%) follow-up between PCI and CABG. CABG group had less myocardial infarction (MI) at five-year follow-up than PCI (5% vs 2.5%; OR 2.04; CI: 1.30-3.19; P=.002; I² =1%). Revascularization rate favored CABG in one-year (8.6% vs 4.5%; OR 2; CI: 1.46-2.73; P<.0001; I² =45%) and five-year (15.9% vs 9.9%; OR 1.73; CI: 1.36-2.20; P<.0001; I² =0%) follow-up. Although stroke rate was lower in PCI group at 1 year, there was no difference in longer follow-up. MACCE at 5 years favored CABG (24% vs 18%; OR 1.45; CI: 1.19-1.76; P=.0001; I² =0%). On subgroup analysis, MACCE were not different between two groups in low-to-intermediate SYNTAX group while it was higher for PCI group with high SYNTAX group.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous coronary intervention could be as safe and effective as CABG in a select group of left main coronary artery disease patients.

Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) decreases mortality in patients with significant left main (LM) coronary artery disease and for years remained the therapy of choice for patients with this ominous lesion. Advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have enabled it to become an alternative to CABG. The results of observational registries and randomized comparisons have shown the safety and efficacy of PCI in appropriately selected patients with low or intermediate angiographic risk scores. Furthermore, the use of physiological measures of flow limitation and the use of intracoronary imaging techniques has added benefit and improved outcomes. The use of fractional flow reserve to more accurately evaluate the significance of intermediate lesions and guide the extent of revascularization has been an important refinement. Intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography assessment of optimal stent deployment has led to reductions in restenosis. Newer generation stents, combined with improvements in specific techniques, especially at the LM bifurcation have extended PCI to more complex anatomic scenarios. The availability of left ventricular support devices in patients with complex coronary anatomy and severely depressed left ventricular function has added a margin of safety to LM and multivessel intervention. Randomized comparisons of CABG with PCI in carefully selected patients, using contemporaneous surgical and interventional techniques and optimal medical therapy, will further aid heart teams in the decision-making process. In conclusion, this review will give a concise overview of the management of unprotected LM disease.

Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Significant unprotected left main stem (ULMS) disease is in approximately 5% to 7% of patients undergoing coronary angiography. Historically, coronary artery bypass grafting has been the gold standard treatment of these patients. With recent advances in stent technology, adjunctive pharmacotherapy, and operator experience, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly regarded as a viable alternative treatment option, especially in patients with favorable coronary anatomy (low and intermediate SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) scores). This article aims to discuss the evidence supporting PCI for ULMS disease, current guidelines, and technical aspects.

Angioplasty of unprotected left main coronary stenosis: Real world experience of a single-operator group from eastern India

Background

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery is the standard treatment of unprotected left main coronary stenosis (ULMCA). However, in the real world scenario, many of these patients are unfit for CABG or prefer angioplasty as an alternative when offered the choice.

Methods

A total of 86 clinically stable patients with ULMCA stenosis who were unfit or unwilling for CABG underwent PCI with DES at two tertiary care centers in Kolkata. Patients were followed up prospectively for a median of 34.6 months for major adverse cardiovascular events. Angiographic follow-up was done after 1 year of index procedure or earlier, if indicated.

Results

Fifty-five patients (64%) had distal left main stenosis. Two-stent technique was used in 19 patients (22%) and single-stent technique in 36 patients (42%) with distal left main lesion. Thirteen patients (15.1%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤45%. There was no in-hospital death, MI, or stent thrombosis. During follow-up, major adverse cardiac event (MACE) occurred in 9 patients (10.5%). Our study revealed significantly greater MACE in patients with distal left main lesion with LVEF ≤45% (50% vs 6.38%, p = 0.0002), high SYNTAX score (36.36% vs 6.82%, p = 0.008), and diabetes (17.95% vs 0.00%, p = 0.07). Overall, also patients with Diabetes, LVEF ≤ 45%, and SYNTAX score >32 had significantly higher MACE. Use of IC Stent, IVUS, or procedural strategy in distal lesion did not affect MACE.

Conclusion

In selective patients with low-intermediate SYNTAX score and without diabetes and LV dysfunction, ULMCA PCI with DES is feasible.

Unprotected Left Main Disease: Indications and Optimal Strategies for Percutaneous Intervention

OPINION STATEMENT

Although the incidence of left main (LM) coronary artery disease is relatively low in patients undergoing routine angiography, it is a common presentation in patients with acute coronary syndromes. With the current interventional tools and techniques, percutaneous intervention for LM disease has become a viable alternative to the traditional coronary artery bypass grafting. Factors that contribute to the success and appropriateness of percutaneous intervention for LM disease include coronary anatomy and patient-specific factors such as left ventricular function. Multiple considerations should be taken into account prior to intervention, including hemodynamic support if necessary, intravascular imaging to guide therapy, and stent technique. This review provides an overview of the current body of literature to support the use of percutaneous intervention in LM disease and serves as guideline for the interventionalist approaching LM revascularization.

Comparison of the efficacy of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for the treatment of left main coronary artery disease

Background:

Recent studies reported that percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation was safe and feasible for the treatment of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease in select patients. However, it is unclear whether drug-eluting stents (DESs) have better outcomes in patients with LMCA disease compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) during long-term follow-up in Chinese populations.

Methods:

From a perspective multicenter registry, 1136 consecutive patients, who underwent BMS or DES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis, were divided into two groups: 1007 underwent DES implantation, and 129 underwent BMS implantation. The primary outcome was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 5 years postimplantation.

Results:

Patients in the DES group were older and more likely to have hyperlipidemia and bifurcation lesions. They had smaller vessels and longer lesions than patients in the BMS group. In the adjusted cohort of patients, the DES group had significantly lower 5 years rates of MACE (19.4% vs. 31.8%, P = 0.022), CV death (7.0% vs. 14.7%, P = 0.045), and MI (5.4% vs. 12.4%, P = 0.049) than the BMS group. There were no significant differences in the rate of TLR (10.9% vs. 17.8%, P = 0.110) and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.758). The rates of MACE (80.6% vs. 68.2%, P = 0.023), CV death (93.0% vs. 85.3%, P = 0.045), TLR (84.5% vs. 72.1%, P = 0.014), and MI (89.9% vs. 80.6%, P = 0.029) free survival were significantly higher in the DES group than in the BMS group. When the propensity score was included as a covariate in the Cox model, the adjusted hazard ratios for the risk of CV death and MI were 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–0.63, P = 0.029) and 0.29 (95% CI: 0.08–0.92, P = 0.037), respectively.

Conclusions:

DES implantation was associated with more favorable clinical outcomes than BMS implantation for the treatment of LMCA disease even though there was no significant difference in the rate of TLR between the two groups.

Update on percutaneous intervention for left main coronary artery stenosis

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) is currently considered as a viable alternative to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for selected patients with left main coronary artery disease. The updated results of the landmark randomized trials comparing CABG versus PCI demonstrated comparable 5-year outcomes and are in line with the current guidelines that designate PCI as a reasonable treatment in this disease subset. Given that the completed randomized trials did not include contemporary DESs, the upcoming results of the ongoing trials evaluating the performance of new-generation DES compared with CABG (such as the EXCEL trial), may further help to clarify the current role and future recommendations of PCI for left main coronary artery disease. Apart from the recent stent technology, further improvements in outcomes after PCI may be possible when it is used with an integrated approach that combines functional concepts for decision-making, adjunctive imaging support and optimal pharmacotherapies.

Long-term outcome of unprotected left main stenting: a Canadian tertiary care experience

BACKGROUND

Coronary stenting is increasingly used to treat unprotected left main disease in selected patients. However, there is a paucity of data on the long-term outcome of these patients in a Canadian context outside of clinical trials.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all provincially-insured patients undergoing left main coronary stenting at a large tertiary referral centre from 2000-2011. Pre-procedural angiograms were reviewed to identify the location of left main disease, and extent of concomitant coronary disease quantified by calculating Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) scores for each patient. In-hospital death and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates were evaluated as were long-term death and MACE rates obtained via linkage of our institutional registry with the Ontario health claims database.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-one patients underwent unprotected left main stenting with 29 (13.1%) in-hospital death and 34 (15.4%) a MACE. At an average follow-up of 3.1 ± 2.8 years, 109 patients (49.3%) died and 151 (68.3%) experienced a MACE. Higher SYNTAX tertile and use of bare metal rather than drug-eluting stents was associated with increased rates of in-hospital and long-term death.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports, to our knowledge, the largest Canadian cohort of unprotected left main stenting over more than a decade. Coronary stenting was associated with acceptable in-hospital event rates, but poor long-term outcomes, reflecting the higher-risk population traditionally selected for this procedure.

Depression, coronary artery disease, and physical activity: how much exercise is enough?

PURPOSE

The mechanisms by which depressive symptoms negatively affect clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remain poorly understood. Previous interventions that have attempted to treat depressive symptoms in patients with CAD to improve their clinical outcomes have been disappointing. Our objectives were, among a cohort of CAD patients, to evaluate the impact of depressive symptoms over time, controlling for comorbidity, in determining both successful long-term lifestyle change (ie, increased physical activity), and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality outcomes. In addition, we examined the impact of physical activity changes over time on 2 known mediators of cardiovascular morbidity: parasympathetic tone and inflammation.

METHODS

Clinical data were previously collected (2004-2006) from 242 elective/urgent coronary angioplasty patients who participated in a prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a behavioral intervention versus an educational control to motivate physical activity over 12 months. Exclusion criteria included: (1) inability to walk; (2) enrollment in other risk-reduction trials; (3) non-English speaking; and (4) lack of cardiologist's permission to increase physical activity. Participants were assessed every 2 months for interval clinical events and physical activity. In addition, biomarkers were collected at baseline and at 12 months in a subset of 54 participants; these biomarkers included low-frequency heart rate variability (lfHRV), high-frequency heart rate variability (hfHRV), serum C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and salivary cortisol.

FINDINGS

The mean age of participants was 63 years and 30% were female. Overall, 37% had high depressive symptoms at baseline. Patients with high depressive symptoms who achieved an increase in physical activity of ≥336 kilocalories(kcal)/week by 12 months had significantly lower rates of cardiovascular morbidity/mortality (5.1% vs. 21.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.20, [95% CI, 0.04-0.98]; P = 0.03). In a multivariate model examining cardiovascular morbidity/mortality in patients with high depressive symptoms, an increase in physical activity of ≥336 kcal/week reduced the risk of new cardiovascular morbidity/mortality (OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.02-0.81]; P < 0.03), and comorbidity increased the risk (OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.18-2.13]; P = 0.002). In a generalized structural equation model, increasing physical activity by ≥336 kcal/week decreased the risk of complications, and comorbidity increased the risk. Furthermore, increasing physical activity (≥336 kcal/week) predicted an increase in hfHRV, a marker of parasympathetic tone, and the increase in hfHRV predicted a reduction in the proinflammatory mediators interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein.

IMPLICATIONS

This study found a threshold in physical activity in CAD patients with depressive symptoms that is associated with a decrease in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Exercise maintenance at this level may improve clinical outcomes via enhanced parasympathetic tone and decreased inflammation. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00248846.

Drug-eluting stents in unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Though coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) has traditionally been the cornerstone of therapy in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease, recent evidence supports the use of percutaneous coronary intervention in appropriate patients. Indeed in patients with ULMCA disease, drug-eluting stents (DES) have shown similar incidence of hard end points, fewer periprocedural complications and lower stroke rates compared with CABG, though at the cost of increased revascularization with time. Furthermore, the availability of newer efficacious and safer DES as well as improvements in diagnostic tools, percutaneous techniques and, importantly, a better patient selection, allowed percutaneous coronary intervention a viable alternative to CABG of left main-patients with low disease complexity; however, even in this interventional era characterized by efficacious DES, patients with ULMCA disease remain a challenging high-risk population where outcomes strongly depend on clinical characteristics, anatomical disease complexity and extension and operator's experience. This review summarizes the role of DES in ULMCA disease patients.

Revascularization strategies for patients with stable coronary artery disease

Patients with coronary artery disease who have prognostically significant lesions or symptoms despite optimum medical therapy require mechanical revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or both. In this review, we will evaluate the evidence-based use of the two revascularization approaches in treating patients with coronary artery disease. CABG has been the predominant mode of revascularization for more than half a century and is the preferred strategy for patients with multivessel disease, especially those with diabetes mellitus, left ventricular systolic dysfunction or complex lesions. There have been significant technical and technological advances in PCI over recent years, and this is now the preferred revascularization modality in patients with single-vessel or low-risk multivessel disease. Percutaneous coronary intervention can also be considered to treat complex multivessel disease in patients with increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes including frail patients and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Improvements in both CABG (including total arterial revascularization, off-pump CABG and 'no-touch' graft harvesting) and PCI (including newer-generation stents, adjunctive pharmacotherapy and intracoronary imaging) mean that they will continue to challenge each other in the future. A 'heart team' approach is strongly recommended to select an evidence-based, yet individualized, revascularization strategy for all patients with complex coronary artery disease. Finally, optimal medical therapy is important for all patients with coronary artery disease, regardless of the mode of revascularization.

Impact of diabetes on mortality and complications after coronary artery by-pass graft operation in patients with left main coronary artery disease

PURPOSE

Left main disease (LMD) is a severe form of coronary artery disease (CAD). Fifty percent of patients with LMD treated conservatively die within 3-5 years of diagnosis. The aim of the study was to assess the influence of type 2 diabetes on early and late (2-year) prognosis and the risk of complications after coronary artery by-pass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with LMD.

MATERIAL/METHODS

We enrolled 257 patients diagnosed with LMD. 169 (67%) underwent CABG, 19 (8%) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without left main stem protection. 30 (12%) patients had CABG previously. Patients treated with CABG were divided into two groups - with and without diabetes. There were 43 (25.4%) patients with diabetes and 126 (74.6%) without diabetes.

RESULTS

We observed more complications with wound healing (40.5% vs. 12.8%, p<0.001) and sternal dehiscence (23.8% vs. 4.0%, p<0.001) after CABG in patients with diabetes. There were no differences in 7-day, 30-day, 3-month and 1-year mortality. 2-Year mortality was also similar in both groups (11.6% vs. 11.1%, p=0.928). Patients with diabetes were more frequently hospitalized due to other reasons than angina (39.5% vs. 20.6%, p=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with diabetes and LMD had more often complications with wound healing and sternal dehiscence after CABG than patients without diabetes. Type 2 diabetes did not influence early and late mortality in patients with LMD treated with cardiac surgery, but the presence of diabetes was associated with more frequent hospitalizations.

Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease.

DESIGN

Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

All cause mortality.

RESULTS

100 trials in 93,553 patients with 262,090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

Acute left main coronary artery occlusion

The treatment of an acute left main coronary artery occlusion still poses a challenge. In this case report we present a 50-year-old patient with an acute occlusion of the left main artery. After a successful angioplasty without "stenting" due to the complexity of the stenosis the patient underwent a successful bypass surgery. We discuss the therapeutic options of acute left main occlusion regarding medical, interventional and surgical options.

Evaluation of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and stenting of Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis in Tehran's Rajaie and Lavasani Hospitals from 2010 to 2011

BACKGROUND

Data of the results from treatment of unprotected and protected LMCA diseases with PCI and stent implantations in our country were limited. Surgical therapy is considered as an standard care for patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis. This notion is based on some randomized and observational studies performed three decades ago which convincingly showed superiority of CABGs over medical therapy. Moreover, preliminary studies have shown that the use of DES for the treatment of unprotected LMCA diseases is associated with very favorable mid-term outcome, which is highly competitive with that of surgery, especially for ostial lesions.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate one year safety and effectiveness of PCI and stenting in LMCA disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a one year clinical follow-up of any patients with LMCA disease "Protected and Unprotected" who underwent PCI and stenting (n = 40) with BMS (n = 17) or DES (n = 23) in Tehran's Rajaje and Lavasani hospitals from September 2010 to September 2011. The primary end points were all-cause mortality, and MACCE which consisted of the composite of death, MI, stroke, and target vessel revascularization, and the duration of hospitalization change the severity of angina pain and the function class of physical activity.

RESULTS

In the one year follow-up, the adjusted risk of death was 5% and the composite of death, MI, stroke and target vessel revascularization (MACCE) was 22%. In 94.7% the number of patients, the severity of angina pain were decreased, and in 92.5% of patients, the function class of physical activity has been improved. The duration of hospitalization was 4.38 ± 1.63 days which was less than that of CABGs.

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of protected and unprotected LMCA diseases, PCI with stent implantation is effective, and leads to decreasing the mortality and the death rate, MI, stroke, the severity of angina pain, and improving the function class of physical activity and tolerance.

Optimal revascularization for complex coronary artery disease

Patients with major or symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) commonly undergo revascularization--either with CABG surgery, which has been the mainstay of revascularization for more than half a century, or with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), which has become the more-commonly used strategy in the past decade. PCI has been tested in more randomized clinical trials than any other procedure in contemporary practice. In general, PCI is the preferred option for treating patients with simple coronary artery lesions and CABG surgery remains the standard of care for patients with complex CAD. Technical advancements in PCI and CABG surgery make comparisons of historical data for these strategies difficult. In this Review, we evaluate the evidence-based use of PCI and CABG surgery in treating patients with multivessel and unprotected left main stem disease and for specific patient groups, including those with diabetes mellitus, chronic heart failure, or chronic kidney disease. Finally, we highlight the available tools to aid decision-making, including clinical guidelines, risk scoring systems, and the role of the 'heart team'.

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.

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.

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.

Meta-analysis of three randomized trials and nine observational studies comparing drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Clinical outcomes for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) remain controversial. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using DESs with CABG in patients with ULMCA disease. Databases were searched for clinical studies that reported outcomes after PCI with DESs and CABG for treatment of ULMCA disease. End points of this meta-analysis were mortality; composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke; and target vessel revascularization at 1-year follow-up. Pooled effects were calculated using fixed-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method) or random-effects models (Dersimonian-Laird method). Twelve clinical studies (3 randomized trials and 9 observational studies) with 5,079 patients were involved in this study. At 1-year follow-up, there were trends toward lower risk of death (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 1.02) and the composite end point of death, MI, or stroke (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.00) in the DES group compared to the CABG group. However, target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the DES group compared to the CABG group (OR 3.52, 95% CI 2.72 to 4.56). In conclusion, PCI with DESs is associated with favorable outcomes for mortality; composite end point of death, MI, or stroke; and a higher risk of target vessel revascularization compared to CABG in patients with ULMCA disease.

Comparison of long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2)

The long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) remains to be investigated. We identified 1,005 patients with ULMCAD of 15,939 patients with first coronary revascularization enrolled in the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2. Cumulative 3-year incidence of a composite of death/myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (22.7% vs 14.8%, p = 0.0006, log-rank test). However, the adjusted outcome was not different between the PCI and CABG groups (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 2.15, p = 0.30). Stratified analysis using the SYNTAX score demonstrated that risk for a composite of death/MI/stroke was not different between the 2 treatment groups in patients with low (<23) and intermediate (23 to 33) SYNTAX scores (adjusted HR 1.70, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.76, p = 0.19; adjusted HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.99, p = 0.72, respectively), whereas in patients with a high SYNTAX score (≥33), it was significantly higher after PCI than after CABG (adjusted HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.16, p = 0.006). In conclusion, risk of PCI for serious adverse events seemed to be comparable to that after CABG in patients with ULMCAD with a low or intermediate SYNTAX score, whereas PCI compared with CABG was associated with a higher risk for serious adverse events in patients with a high SYNTAX score.

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.