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

Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left-Main Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

The use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after coronary revascularization for left-main disease is still debated. The study aimed to characterize patients who received dual versus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left-main disease and compare the outcomes of those patients.

RESULTS

This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 551 patients who were grouped into 2 groups: patients who received SAPT (n = 150) and those who received DAPT (n = 401). There were no differences in age ( P = 0.451), gender ( P = 0.063), smoking ( P = 0.941), diabetes mellitus ( P = 0.773), history of myocardial infarction ( P = 0.709), chronic kidney disease ( P = 0.615), atrial fibrillation ( P = 0.306), or cerebrovascular accident ( P = 0.550) between patients who received SAPT versus DAPT. DAPTs were more commonly used in patients with acute coronary syndrome [87 (58%) vs. 273 (68.08%); P = 0.027], after off-pump CABG [12 (8%) vs. 73 (18.2%); P = 0.003] and in patients with radial artery grafts [1 (0.67%) vs. 32 (7.98%); P < 0.001]. While SAPTs were more commonly used in patients with low ejection fraction [55 (36.67%) vs. 61 (15.21%); P < 0.001] and in patients with postoperative acute kidney injury [27 (18%) vs. 37 (9.23%); P = 0.004]. The attributed treatment effect of DAPT for follow-up major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events was not significantly different from that of SAPT [β, -2.08 (95% confidence interval (CI), -20.8-16.7); P = 0.828]. The attributed treatment effect of DAPT on follow-up all-cause mortality was not significantly different from that of SAPT [β, 4.12 (CI, -11.1-19.32); P = 0.595]. There was no difference in bleeding between groups ( P = 0.666).

CONCLUSIONS

DAPTs were more commonly used in patients with acute coronary syndrome, after off-pump CABG, and with radial artery grafts. SAPTs were more commonly used in patients with low ejection fraction and acute kidney injury. Patients on DAPT after CABG for left-main disease had comparable major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events and survival to patients on SAPT, with no difference in bleeding events.

Does Gender Affect the Outcomes of Myocardial Revascularization for Left-Main Coronary Artery Disease?

Currently, gender is not considered in the choice of the revascularization strategy for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. This study analyzed the effect of gender on the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with ULMCA disease. Females who had PCI (n = 328) were compared with females who had CABG (n = 132) and PCI in males (n = 894) was compared with CABG (n = 784). Females with CABG had higher overall hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) than females with PCI. Male patients with CABG had higher MACE; however, mortality did not differ between males with CABG vs PCI. In female patients, follow-up mortality was significantly higher in CABG patients, and target lesion revascularization was higher in patients with PCI. Male patients had no difference in mortality and MACE between groups; however, MI was higher with CABG, and congestive heart failure was higher with PCI. In conclusion, women with ULMCA disease treated with PCI could have better survival with lower MACE compared with CABG. These differences were not evident in males treated with either CABG or PCI. PCI could be the preferred revascularization strategy in women with ULMCA disease.

Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting in emergency and non-emergency unprotected left-main revascularization

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease in the emergency setting is still controversial. Thus, we aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with and without emergent LMCA disease.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 2138 patients recruited from 14 centers between 2015 and 2019. We compared patients with emergent LMCA revascularization who underwent PCI (n = 264) to patients who underwent CABG (n = 196) and patients with non-emergent LMCA revascularization with PCI (n = 958) to those who underwent CABG (n = 720). The study outcomes were in-hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

RESULTS

Emergency PCI patients were older and had a significantly higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease, lower ejection fraction, and higher EuroSCORE than CABG patients. CABG patients had significantly higher SYNTAX scores, multivessel disease, and ostial lesions. In patients presenting with arrest, PCI had significantly lower MACCE (P = 0.017) and in-hospital mortality (P = 0.016) than CABG. In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low (P = 0.015) and intermediate (P < 0.001) EuroSCORE. PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low (P = 0.002) and intermediate (P = 0.008) SYNTAX scores. In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with reduced hospital mortality in patients with intermediate (P = 0.001) and high (P = 0.002) EuroSCORE compared to CABG. PCI was associated with lower hospital mortality in patients with low (P = 0.031) and intermediate (P = 0.001) SYNTAX scores. At a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR: 10-37), emergency PCI had lower MACCE compared to CABG [HR: 0.30 (95% CI 0.14-0.66), P < 0.003], with no significant difference in all-cause mortality between emergency PCI and CABG [HR: 1.18 (95% CI 0.23-6.08), P = 0.845].

CONCLUSIONS

PCI could be advantageous over CABG in revascularizing LMCA disease in emergencies. PCI could be preferred for revascularization of non-emergent LMCA in patients with intermediate EuroSCORE and low and intermediate SYNTAX scores.

Outcomes of Left Main Revascularization in Patients with Anemia: Gulf Left Main Registry

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of baseline anemia and anemia following revascularization on outcomes in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study conducted between January 2015 and December 2019. The data on patients with ULMCA who underwent revascularization through percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) were stratified by the hemoglobin level at baseline into anemic and non-anemic groups to compare in-hospital events. The pre-discharge hemoglobin following revascularization was categorized into very low (<80 g/L for men and women), low (≥80 and ≤119 g/L for women and ≤129 g/L for men), and normal (≥130 g/L for men and ≥120 g/L for women) to assess impact on follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2,138 patients were included, 796 (37.2%) of whom had anemia at baseline. A total of 319 developed anemia after revascularization and moved from being non-anemic at baseline to anemic at discharge. There was no difference in hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) and mortality between CABG and PCI in anemic patients. At a median follow-up time of 20 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 27), patients with pre-discharge anemia who underwent PCI had a higher incidence of congestive heart failure (CHF) (p < 0.0001), and those who underwent CABG had significantly higher follow-up mortality (HR: 9.85 (95% CI: 2.53-38.43), p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this Gulf LM study, baseline anemia had no impact upon in-hospital MACCE and total mortality following revascularization (PCI or CABG). However, pre-discharge anemia is associated with worse outcomes after ULMCA disease revascularization, with significantly higher all-cause mortality in patients who had CABG, and a higher incidence of CHF in PCI patients, at a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR: 27).

Outcomes of Myocardial Revascularization in Diabetic Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: A Multicenter Observational Study From Three Gulf Countries

BACKGROUND

Real-world data for managing patients with diabetes and left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease are scarce. We compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in diabetes and LMCA disease patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied patients with LMCA presented to 14 centers from 2015 to 2019. The study included 2138 patients with unprotected LMCA disease; 1468 (68.7 %) had diabetes. Patients were grouped into; diabetes with PCI (n = 804) or CABG (n = 664) and non-diabetes with PCI (n = 418) or CABG (n = 252).

RESULTS

In diabetes, cardiac (34 (5.1 %) vs. 22 (2.7 %); P = 0.016), non-cardiac (13 (2 %) vs. 6 (0.7 %); P = 0.027) and total hospital mortality (47 (7.1 %) vs. 28 (3.5 %); P = 0.0019), myocardial infarction (45 (6.8 %) vs. 11 (1.4 %); P = 0.001), cerebrovascular events (25 (3.8 %) vs. 12 (1.5 %); P = 0.005) and minor bleeding (65 (9.8 %) vs. 50 (6.2 %); P = 0.006) were significantly higher in CABG patients compared to PCI; respectively. The median follow-up time was 20 (10-37) months. In diabetes, total mortality was higher in CABG (P = 0.001) while congestive heart failure was higher in PCI (P = 0.001). There were no differences in major adverse cerebrovascular events and target lesion revascularization between PCI and CABG. Predictors of mortality in diabetes were high anatomical SYNTAX, peripheral arterial disease, chronic kidney disease, and cardiogenic shock.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter retrospective study, we found no significant difference in clinical outcomes during the short-term follow-up between PCI with second-generation DES and CABG except for lower total mortality and a higher rate of congestive heart failure in PCI group of patients. Randomized trials to characterize patients who could benefit from each treatment option are needed.

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on outcomes after left main revascularization: g-LM Registry

AIMS

The impact of left ventricular dysfunction on clinical outcomes following revascularization is not well established in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCA). In this study, we evaluated the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on clinical outcomes of patients with ULMCA requiring revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

METHODS

The details of the design, methods, end points, and relevant definitions are outlined in the Gulf Left Main Registry: a retrospective, observational study conducted between January 2015 and December 2019 across 14 centres in 3 Gulf countries. In this study, the data on patients with ULMCA who underwent revascularization through PCI or CABG were stratified by LVEF into three main subgroups; low (l-LVEF <40%), mid-range (m-LVEF 40-49%), and preserved (p-LVEF ≥50%). Primary outcomes were hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and mortality and follow-up MACCE and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 2137 patients were included; 1221 underwent PCI and 916 had CABG. During hospitalization, MACCE was significantly higher in patients with l-LVEF [(10.10%), P = 0.005] and m-LVEF [(10.80%), P = 0.009], whereas total mortality was higher in patients with m-LVEF [(7.40%), P = 0.009] and p-LVEF [(7.10%), P = 0.045] who underwent CABG. There was no mortality difference between groups in patients with l-LVEF. At a median follow-up of 15 months, there was no difference in MACCE and total mortality between patients who underwent CABG or PCI with p-LVEF and m-LVEF.

CONCLUSION

CABG was associated with higher in-hospital events. Hospital mortality in patients with l-LVEF was comparable between CABG and PCI. At 15 months' follow-up, PCI could have an advantage in decreasing MACCE in patients with l-LVEF.

One Versus Two Stents Strategies for Unprotected Left Main Intervention: Gulf Left Main Registry

The optimal stenting strategy for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease remains debated. This retrospective observational study (Gulf Left Main Registry) analyzed the outcomes of 1 vs 2 stents in patients with unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Overall, 1222 patients were evaluated; 173 had 1 stent and 1049 had 2 stents. The 2-stent group was older with more comorbidities, higher mean SYNTAX scores, and more distal bifurcation lesions. In the 1-stent group, in-hospital events were significant for major bleeding, and better mean creatinine clearance. At median follow-up of 20 months, the 1-stent group was more likely to have target lesion revascularization (TLR). Total mortality was numerically lower in the 1-stent group (.00% vs 2.10%); however, this was not statistically significant (P=.068). Our analysis demonstrates the benefits of a 2-stent approach for ULMCA patients with high SYNTAX scores and lesions in both major side branches, while the potential benefit of a 1-stent approach for less complex ULMCA was also observed. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to definitively demonstrate the optimal approach.