Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting: A meta-analysis of patients with left main coronary artery disease

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease-Current Management and Future Perspectives

Due to its anatomical features, patients with an obstruction of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) have an increased risk of death. For years, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered as a gold standard for revascularization. However, notable advancements in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) led to its acknowledgement as an important treatment alternative, especially in patients with low and intermediate anatomical complexity. Although recent years brought several random clinical trials that investigated the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous approach in LMCA, there are still uncertainties regarding optimal revascularization strategies. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment methods of LMCA disease, focusing on percutaneous methods.

New-generation drug-eluting stents for left main coronary artery disease according to the EXCEL trial enrollment criteria: Insights from the all-comers, international, multicenter DELTA-2 registry

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been established as an alternative treatment option to coronary artery by-pass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Whether the findings of randomized controlled trials are applicable to a real-world patient population is unclear.

METHODS

We compared the outcomes of PCI with new-generation DES in the all-comer, international, multicenter DELTA-2 registry retrospectively evaluating mid-term clinical outcomes with the historical CABG cohort enrolled in the DELTA-1 registry according to the EXCEL key inclusion or exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at the median time of follow-up time of 501 days. The consistency of the effect of DELTA-2 PCI versus DELTA-1 CABG according to the EXCEL enrollment criteria was tested using propensity score-adjusted Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Out of 3986 patients enrolled in the DELTA-2 PCI registry, 2418 were EXCEL candidates and 1568 were not EXCEL candidates. The occurrence of the primary endpoint was higher among non-EXCEL candidates compared with EXCEL candidates (15.4% vs. 6.9%; hazard ratio 2.52; 95% confidence interval 2.00-3.16; p < 0.001). Among 901 patients enrolled in the historical DELTA-1 CABG cohort, 471 were EXCEL candidates and 430 were not EXCEL candidates. When comparing the DELTA-2 PCI with the DELTA-1 CABG cohort, the occurrence of the primary endpoint was lower in the PCI group compared with the historical CABG cohort among EXCEL candidates (6.9% vs. 10.7%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.45-0.92), while no significant difference was observed among non-EXCEL candidates (15.4% vs. 12.5%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-1.33) with evidence of statistical interaction (adjusted interaction p-value = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world population, PCI can be selected more favorably as an alternative to CABG in patients fulfilling the enrollment criteria of the EXCEL trial.