Impact of drug-eluting stent selection on long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: The sirolimus vs paclitaxel drug-eluting stent for left main registry (SP-DELFT)

Comparative outcomes after unprotected left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention: a national linked cohort study of 5,065 acute and elective cases from the BCIS Registry (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society)

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to report outcomes from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to an unprotected left main stem (UPLMS) stenosis according to presenting syndrome, including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS), and chronic stable angina (CSA).

BACKGROUND

There are no published whole-country data concerning patient outcomes following PCI to UPLMS.

METHODS

This study is a prospective national cohort study using data from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) registry from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2010.

RESULTS

Of 5,065 patients having PCI to an UPLMS, 784 (15.5%) presented with STEMI, 2,381 (47.0%) with NSTEACS, and 1,900 (37.5%) with CSA. Crude 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were STEMI: 28.3% and 37.6%, NSTEACS: 8.9% and 19.5%, and CSA: 1.4% and 7.0%, respectively. Unadjusted in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event rates were STEMI: 26.6%, NSTEACS: 6.6%, and CSA: 3.3%. Risk of 30-day mortality was much greater for STEMI and NSTEACS patients than CSA (STEMI adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 29.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.37 to 44.80, NSTEACS aOR: 6.45, 95% CI: 4.27 to 9.76). More than 40% of patients presenting with STEMI had cardiogenic shock, in whom mortality was higher than in STEMI cases without shock (30 days: 52.0% vs. 11.7%, 1 year: 61.1% vs. 20.9%). Radial access, compared with the femoral approach, was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality (STEMI aOR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.62; NSTEACS aOR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-half of the patients who received UPLMS PCI were acute where outcomes were much worse than elective cases. Cardiogenic shock is common in STEMI patients, of whom more than one-half die at 30 days. The radial approach was associated with reduced early mortality in acute cases.

Acute thrombosis during left main stenting using tap technique in a patient presenting with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome

This case reports the sudden development of large burden of thrombi in the left anterior descending coronary artery immediately following distal left main stenting using TAP technique in a middle aged man who presented with non ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome despite having been administered 7,500 units of unfractionated heparin and being given 325 mg of aspirin and 60 mg of prasugrel prior to the procedure. The thrombi were managed effectively by giving an intra-coronary high bolus dose of tirofiban (25 mcg/kg) without the need for catheter thrombus extraction. Tirofiban intra-venous infusion was maintained for 18 hours, and the patient was discharged in stable condition on the third day. Importantly there is no controlled study on upstream administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in addition to the newer more potent anti-platelet agents in patients with unprotected distal left main disease presenting with non ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, nor is there any data on safety and efficacy of mandatory usage of injectable anti-platelet agents at the start of a procedure in a catheterization laboratory in such a setting.

Percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main disease: five-year outcome of a single-center registry

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used as a treatment option for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) lesions. We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome of patients undergoing ULMCA PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analyzed 95 consecutive patients (median EuroSCORE I 2.9 [IQR 1.4;6.1]) who underwent ULMCA PCI between 1999 and 2006, included in a single-center prospective registry. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at five years. Forty patients (42.1%) were treated in the setting of acute coronary syndrome and 81 patients (85%) had at least one additional significant lesion (SYNTAX score 24.2±11.8). Single ULMCA PCI was performed in 33% (81.1% with drug-eluting stents) and complete functional revascularization was achieved in 79% of the patients. During the observation period, 20 patients died (21.1%), 6 (6.3%) had MI and 11 (11.6%) had TLR (total combined MACE 28.4%). Independent predictors of MACE were previous MI (HR 2.9 95% CI 1.23-6.92; p=0.015), hypertension (HR 5.7 95% CI 1.86-17.47; p=0.002) and the EuroSCORE I (HR 1.1 95% CI 1.03-1.12; p=0.001). Drug-eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower MACE rate, even after propensity score adjustment (AUC=0.84; HR [corrected] 0.1; 95% CI 0.04-0.26; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention, particularly using drug-eluting stents, can be considered a valid alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting, especially in high-risk surgical patients and with favorable anatomic features.

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

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

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.

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a meta-analysis to assess outcomes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis.

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists regarding the relative performance of DES versus BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary stenosis.

METHODS

Of a total of 838 studies, 44 met inclusion criteria (n = 10,342). The co-primary end points were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: mortality, MI, TVR/TLR).

RESULTS

Event rates for DES and BMS were calculated at 6 to 12 months, at 2 years, and at 3 years. Crude event rates at 3 years were mortality (8.8% and 12.7%), MI (4.0% and 3.4%), TVR/TLR (8.0% and 16.4%), and MACE (21.4% and 31.6%). Nine studies were included in a comparative analysis (n = 5,081). At 6 to 12 months the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06 to 15.48; p = 0.97), MI 0.64 (95% CI: 0.19 to 2.17; p = 0.47), TVR/TLR 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.84; p = 0.01), and MACE 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.78; p = 0.01). At 2 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.42 (95% CI: 0.28 to 0.62; p < 0.01), MI 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01 to 3.53; p = 0.13), and MACE 0.31 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.66; p < 0.01). At 3 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.92; p = 0.01), MI 0.49 (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.92; p = 0.03), TVR/TLR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.69; p < 0.01), and MACE 0.78 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.07; p = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that DES is associated with favorable outcomes for mortality, MI, TVR/TLR, and MACE as compared to BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.