Randomized Trial of Stents Versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Comparison of intravascular ultrasound-guided with optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for left main distal bifurcation lesions: Rationale and design of the ISOLEDS trial

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can provide benefits for anatomically suitable left main coronary artery (LMCA) lesions. When compared to traditional coronary angiography (CAG) -guided PCI, the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance has shown significant long-term prognostic improvements in LMCA PCI. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) offers a higher axial resolution than IVUS. However, there is currently a lack of relevant randomized controlled trials investigating the use of OCT specifically for left main distal bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

The ISOLEDS trial is an ongoing multicenter study that aims to compare IVUS-guided PCI with OCT-guided PCI for patients with true LMCA distal bifurcation lesions. This prospective, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial will enroll a total of 664 patients with visually-defined Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1 classification of left main distal bifurcation lesions. The patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either IVUS-guided or OCT-guided PCI. The primary endpoint is to assess the occurrence of target lesion failure (TLF) within 12 months after the procedure. After undergoing PCI, patients are required to visit the hospital for a 12-month clinical follow-up. During this clinical assessment, CAG can be performed to evaluate the status of target lesions.

DISCUSSION

The ISOLEDS trial represents the first attempt to compare two distinct intracoronary imaging techniques for guiding PCI in patients with true LMCA distal bifurcation lesions. By evaluating and comparing the outcomes of these two imaging techniques, the trial results will aid operators in selection of the most effective approach for guiding PCI in these patients.

Contemporary State-of-the-Art PCI of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

The left main coronary artery (LMCA) supplies over 70% of the myocardium, and significant LMCA disease is associated with high morbidity and mortality. With remarkable advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including stent technology, antithrombotic agents, and evolving procedural techniques, PCI has become an important treatment option in clinical practice guidelines for the revascularization of LMCA disease. In contemporary clinical practice, a heart-team approach to shared decision-making, considering clinical/anatomic factors along with patient preferences, is emphasized for patients with significant LMCA disease requiring myocardial revascularization. Furthermore, recent progress in PCI procedures combined with intravascular imaging or functional guidance has resulted in significant improvements in PCI outcomes, especially for complex lesions, including LMCA disease. Nevertheless, owing to inherent anatomic complexities and frequent multivessel involvement, several unmet issues remain regarding the determination of the appropriate treatment approach for significant LMCA disease, for which further clinical research is required. This contemporary review article provides a comprehensive overview of left main PCI based on current guidelines and underlying trial data, addresses important unresolved diagnostic and therapeutic issues, and identifies future perspectives likely to advance progress in this field.

Prognostic Role of Functional SYNTAX Score Based on Quantitative Flow Ratio

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The quantitative flow ratio (QFR)-based functional Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (FSSQFR) combines coronary arteries' anatomy and physiology.

METHODS

We performed an offline FSSQFR calculation in all-comers undergoing coronary angiography in a single center. Based on the tertiles of SYNTAX Score (SS), patients were divided into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups with the following cut-offs: SS/FSSQFR < 13, SS/FSSQFR: 13-21, and SS/FSSQFR: >21. The primary endpoint was the predictive value of the FSSQFR of the composite endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure, and life-threatening arrhythmias after the follow-up period.

RESULTS

This study included 410 patients. SS and FSSQFR were measured for all patients. After calculating FSSQFR, the risk stratification changed in 11% of the study population; more specifically, 26.8, 32.7, and 40.5% of patients were classified as high-, intermediate-, and low-risk, respectively. After a median 30.2 (25.7-33.7) months follow-up period, we recorded 85 events of the primary outcome. The high-risk FSSQFR group compared to the low-risk group had a significantly higher rate of the primary composite outcome (HR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.33-3.34, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, patients classified as the high-risk FSSQFR group had a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular adverse events.

Prognostic value of pan immune-inflammation value in patients undergoing unprotected left main coronary artery stenting

Aim: This study aimed long-term prognostic factors for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, focusing on inflammatory parameters like Pan Immune-Inflammation Value (PIV) and Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index (SII).Materials & methods: This retrospective, observational study involved 121 patients receiving unprotected LMCA PCI.The study's primary end point was MACE, including all-cause death, repeat revascularization and myocardial reinfarction.Results: The PIV and SII scores emerged as independent predictors of MACE occurrence in patients undergoing PCI for unprotected LMCA disease (p:0.045,p:0.048;respectively).In addition, age, ejection fraction, creatinine, shock presentation and the residual syntax score were identified as significant independent predictors of MACE in both models.Conclusion: This study showed a significant, independent correlation between PIV, SII and MACE in patients undergoing PCI for LMCA disease, with PIV showing slightly better predictive capability than SII.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary bypass surgery for coronary artery disease: A Bayesian perspective

OBJECTIVES

Coronary revascularization is frequently performed for coronary artery disease (CAD). This study aims to assess the totality of randomized evidence comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for CAD.

METHODS

A systematic search was applied to 3 electronic databases, including randomized trials comparing DES-PCI with CABG for CAD with 5-year follow-up. A Bayesian hierarchical meta-analytic model was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 5 years; secondary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. End points were reported in median relative risks (RRs) and absolute risk differences, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Kaplan-Meier curves were used to reconstruct individual patient data.

RESULTS

Six studies comprising 8269 patients (DES-PCI, n = 4134; CABG, n = 4135) were included. All-cause mortality at 5 years was increased with DES-PCI (median RR, 1.23; 95% CrI, 1.01-1.45), with a median absolute risk difference of +2.3% (95% CrI, 0.1%-4.5%). For stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, the median RRs were 0.79 (95% CrI, 0.54-1.25), 1.84 (95% CrI, 1.23-2.75), and 1.80 (95% CrI, 1.51-2.16) for DES-PCI, respectively. In a sample of 1000 patients undergoing DES-PCI instead of CABG for CAD, a median of 23 additional deaths, 46 myocardial infarctions, and 85 repeat revascularizations occurred at 5 years, whereas 10 strokes were prevented.

CONCLUSIONS

The current data suggest a clinically relevant benefit of CABG over DES-PCI at 5 years in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, despite an increased risk of stroke. These findings may guide the heart-team and the shared decision-making process.

Clinical Updates in Coronary Artery Disease: A Comprehensive Review

Despite significant goals achieved in diagnosis and treatment in recent decades, coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a high mortality entity and continues to pose substantial challenges to healthcare systems globally. After the latest guidelines, novel data have emerged and have not been yet considered for routine practice. The scope of this review is to go beyond the guidelines, providing insights into the most recent clinical updates in CAD, focusing on non-invasive diagnostic techniques, risk stratification, medical management and interventional therapies in the acute and stable scenarios. Highlighting and synthesizing the latest developments in these areas, this review aims to contribute to the understanding and management of CAD helping healthcare providers worldwide.

When to Consider Coronary Revascularization for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Revascularization is an effective adjunct to medical therapy for some patients with chronic coronary disease. Despite numerous randomized trials, there remains significant uncertainty regarding if and how to revascularize many patients. Coronary artery bypass grafting is a class I indication for patients with significant left main stenosis or multivessel disease with ejection fraction ≤ 35%. For other patients, clinicians must carefully consider the potential benefits of symptom improvement and reduction of future myocardial infarction or CV death against the risk and cost of revascularization. Although guidelines provide a framework for these decisions, each individual patient will have distinct coronary anatomy, clinical factors, and preferences.

Do the Few Dictate Care for the Many? Revascularisation Considerations That Go Beyond the Guidelines

The burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is large and growing, commonly presenting with comorbidities and older age. Patients may benefit from coronary revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), yet half of patients with CAD who would benefit from revascularisation fall outside the eligibility criteria of trials to date. As such, the choice of revascularisation procedures varies depending on the CAD anatomy and complexity, surgical risk and comorbidities, the patient's preferences and values, and the treating team's expertise. The recent American guidelines on coronary revascularisation are comprehensive in describing recommendations for PCI, CABG, or conservative management in patients with CAD. However, individual challenging patient presentations cannot be fully captured in guidelines. The aim of this narrative review is to summarise common clinical scenarios that are not sufficiently described by contemporary clinical guidelines and trials in order to inform heart team members and trainees about the nuanced considerations and available evidence to manage such cases. We discuss clinical cases that fall beyond the current guidelines and summarise the relevant evidence evaluating coronary revascularisation for these patients. In addition, we highlight gaps in knowledge based on a lack of research (eg, ineligibility of certain patient populations), underrepresentation in research (eg, underenrollment of female and non-White patients), and the surge in newer minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. We argue that ultimately, evidence-based medicine, patient preference, shared decision making, and effective heart team communications are necessary to best manage complex CAD presentations potentially benefitting from revascularisation with CABG or PCI.

Risk Prediction Models for Long-Term Survival after Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The reporting of alternative postoperative measures of quality after cardiac surgery is becoming increasingly important as in-hospital mortality rates continue to decline. This study aims to systematically review and assess risk models designed to predict long-term outcomes after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for articles published between 1990 and 2020. Studies developing or validating risk prediction models for long-term outcomes after cardiac surgery were included. Data were extracted using checklists for critical appraisal and systematic review of prediction modeling studies.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were identified for inclusion in the review, of which nine studies described the development of long-term risk prediction models after cardiac surgery and two were external validation studies. A total of 70 predictors were included across the nine models. The most frequently used predictors were age (n = 9), peripheral vascular disease (n = 8), renal disease (n = 8), and pulmonary disease (n = 8). Despite all models demonstrating acceptable performance on internal validation, only two models underwent external validation, both of which performed poorly.

CONCLUSION

Nine risk prediction models predicting long-term mortality after cardiac surgery have been identified in this review. Statistical issues with model development, limited inclusion of outcomes beyond 5 years of follow-up, and a lack of external validation studies means that none of the models identified can be recommended for use in contemporary cardiac surgery. Further work is needed either to successfully externally validate existing models or to develop new models. Newly developed models should aim to use standardized long-term specific reproducible outcome measures.

Real-world long-term survival after non-emergent percutaneous coronary intervention to unprotected left main coronary artery - From the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry

BACKGROUND

Current evidence suggests that percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMPCI) in selected patients is a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting. However, real-world long-term survival data is limited.

METHODS

We analyzed 24,644 patients from the MIG (Melbourne Interventional Group) registry between 2005 and 2020. We compared baseline clinical and procedural characteristics, in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, and long-term survival between unprotected LMPCI and non-LMPCI among patients without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

Unprotected LMPCI patients (n = 185) were significantly older (mean age 72.0 vs. 64.6 years, p < 0.001), had higher prevalence of impaired ejection fraction (EF <50 %; 27.3 % vs. 14.9 %, p < 0.001) and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 (40.9 % vs. 21.5 %, p < 0.001), and had greater use of intravascular ultrasound (21 % vs. 1 %, p < 0.001) and drug-eluting stents (p < 0.001). LMPCI was associated with longer hospital stay (4 days vs. 2 days, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in other in-hospital outcomes, 30-day mortality (0.6 % vs. 0.6 %, p = 0.90), and major adverse cardiac events (1.7 % vs. 3 %, p = 0.28). Although the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival to 8 years was significantly less with LMPCI compared to non-LMPCI (p < 0.01), LMPCI was not a predictor of long-term survival up to 8 years after Cox regression analysis (HR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.40-1.13, p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

In this study, non-emergent unprotected LMPCI was uncommonly performed, and IVUS was underutilized. Despite greater co-morbidities, LMPCI patients had comparable 30-day outcomes to non-LMPCI, and LMPCI was not an independent predictor of long-term mortality.

Evidence-based Management of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is associated with high morbidity and mortality due to the large myocardial mass at risk. Although medical treatment may be an option in selected low-risk patients, revascularisation is recommended to improve survival in the majority of patients presenting with a significant left main stenosis. In the past decade, multiple randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses have compared coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), finding controversial results. The strategy for LMCAD revascularisation is still challenging. Coronary anatomy complexity, clinical features and patient preferences are key elements to be considered by the heart team. The current guidelines define CABG as standard therapy, but the continuous improvements in PCI techniques, the use of intracoronary imaging and functional assessment make PCI a feasible alternative in selected patients, particularly in those with comorbidities and contraindications to CABG. This review analyses the most important studies comparing CABG versus PCI in patients with LMCAD.

2022 Joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG

In October 2021, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) jointly agreed to establish a Task Force (TF) to review recommendations of the 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization as they apply to patients with left main (LM) disease with low-to-intermediate SYNTAX score (0-32). This followed the withdrawal of support by the EACTS in 2019 for the recommendations about the management of LM disease of the previous guideline. The TF was asked to review all new relevant data since the 2018 guidelines including updated aggregated data from the four randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with LM disease. This document represents a summary of the work of the TF; suggested updated recommendations for the choice of revascularization modality in patients undergoing myocardial revascularization for LM disease are included. In stable patients with an indication for revascularization for LM disease, with coronary anatomy suitable for both procedures and a low predicted surgical mortality, the TF concludes that both treatment options are clinically reasonable based on patient preference, available expertise, and local operator volumes. The suggested recommendations for revascularization with CABG are Class I, Level of Evidence A. The recommendations for PCI are Class IIa, Level of Evidence A. The TF recognized several important gaps in knowledge related to revascularization in patients with LM disease and recognizes that aggregated data from the four randomized trials were still only large enough to exclude large differences in mortality.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recently, both US and European guidelines have predominantly recommended coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the preferred revascularisation method. However, emerging data have raised the possibility of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) being a viable and effective alternative. This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the latest insights from major clinical trials to ascertain whether PCI could be as effective as CABG in treating left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. To achieve this, a comprehensive systematic search was conducted across databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov. The search spanned from the inception of these databases to August 20, 2022, and exclusively focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Employing the random effects model, selected studies underwent rigorous analysis. The study outcomes encompassed a spectrum of factors such as all-cause mortality, major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and revascularisation procedures. The observation periods of interest included the 30-day mark, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. The analysis integrated six RCTs, revealing noteworthy patterns. In terms of all-cause mortality, PCI demonstrated non-inferiority to CABG across all observed time frames: 30 days (OR 0.6), 1 year (OR 0.77), 5 years (OR 1.41), and 10 years (OR 1.08). Analysis of MACCE outcomes favored PCI at 30 days and CABG at 5 years. The utilisation of the original five-year EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularisation) trial definition for MI highlighted higher MI rates for PCI compared to CABG (OR 1.66, P < 0.05). Intriguingly, when the subsequently released EXCEL data, aligned with the third universal MI definition, was incorporated, the five-year data consistently leaned towards CABG. Specifically, the PCI group exhibited 7.5% MI rates in contrast to the 3.6% in the CABG cohort (OR 2.19, P < 0.001). Concerning stroke, PCI proved advantageous at 30 days and 1 year while exhibiting no significant disparity at 5 and 10 years. Revascularisation procedures favoured CABG at one and five years, with comparability at the remaining time points. In summation, the outcomes of this comprehensive meta-analysis suggest that PCI could serve as a feasible alternative to CABG in the context of uncomplicated LMCA disease. It's worth noting that CABG might still hold an advantage for complex lesions.

2022 Joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG

Task Force structure and summary of clinical evidence of 2022 ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease. CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; LM, left main; SYNTAX, Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery. a'Event' refers to the composite of death, myocardial infarction (according to Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction if available, otherwise protocol defined) or stroke. In October 2021, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) jointly agreed to establish a Task Force (TF) to review recommendations of the 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization as they apply to patients with left main (LM) disease with low-to-intermediate SYNTAX score (0-32). This followed the withdrawal of support by the EACTS in 2019 for the recommendations about the management of LM disease of the previous guideline. The TF was asked to review all new relevant data since the 2018 guidelines including updated aggregated data from the four randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with LM disease. This document represents a summary of the work of the TF; suggested updated recommendations for the choice of revascularization modality in patients undergoing myocardial revascularization for LM disease are included. In stable patients with an indication for revascularization for LM disease, with coronary anatomy suitable for both procedures and a low predicted surgical mortality, the TF concludes that both treatment options are clinically reasonable based on patient preference, available expertise, and local operator volumes. The suggested recommendations for revascularization with CABG are Class I, Level of Evidence A. The recommendations for PCI are Class IIa, Level of Evidence A. The TF recognized several important gaps in knowledge related to revascularization in patients with LM disease and recognizes that aggregated data from the four randomized trials were still only large enough to exclude large differences in mortality.

Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization

Left main (LM) coronary artery disease accounts for approximately 4-6% of all percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). There has been mounting evidence indicating the non-inferiority of LM PCI as a revascularization option, particularly for those with a low SYNTAX score. The EXCEL and NOBEL trials have shaped current guidelines. The European Society of Cardiology assigned a class 2a (level of evidence B) for isolated LM disease involving the shaft and ostium and a class IIb (level of evidence B) for isolated LM disease involving the bifurcation or additional two- or three-vessel disease and a SYNTAX score <32. However, data on the use of a single stent or an upfront two-stent strategy for distal LM disease are conflicting, wherein the EBC Main trial reported similar outcomes with a stepwise provisional approach and the DKCRUSH-V trial reported better outcomes with an upfront two-stent strategy using the 'double-kissing' crush technique. Although several studies have noted better immediate results with image-guided PCI, there are few data on outcomes in LM disease specifically. In fact, the uptake of imaging in the aforementioned landmark trials was only 40%. More importantly, the role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been less well studied in LM PCI. Indiscriminate use of MCS for LM PCI has been noted in clinical practice. Trials evaluating the benefit of MCS in high-risk PCI demonstrated no benefit. This review highlights contemporary trials as they apply to current practice in LM PCI.

[Myocardial revascularization in chronic coronary artery disease. State of art]

The review addresses debatable issues of myocardial revascularization in chronic forms of ischemic heart disease, shows major differences between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting in terms of long-term prognosis, and the dependence of the results on the clinical profile of the disease. The review of current publications demonstrates advantages of open surgery in long-term survival and prevention of adverse outcomes in target groups of patients.

10 Years of SYNTAX: Closing an Era of Clinical Research After Identifying New Outcome Determinants

The SYNTAX trial randomized patients equally eligible for coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention using the Heart Team approach. The SYNTAXES study achieved a follow-up rate of 93.8% and reported the 10-year vital status. Factors associated with increased mortality at 10 years were pharmacologically treated diabetes mellitus, increased waist circumference, reduced left ventricular function, prior cerebrovascular and peripheral vascular disease, western Europe and North American descent, current smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, elevated C-reactive protein, anemia, and an increase in HbA1c. Procedural factors associated with higher 10 years mortality include periprocedural myocardial infarction, extensive stenting, small stents, ≥1 heavily calcified lesion, ≥1 bifurcation lesion, residual SYNTAX score >8, and staged percutaneous coronary intervention. Optimal medical therapy at 5 years, use of statins, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, multiple arterial grafts, and higher physical component score and mental component score were associated with lower mortality at 10 years. Numerous scores and prediction models were developed to help individualize risk assessment. Machine learning has emerged as a novel approach for developing risk models.

High Non-Cardiac Death Incidence Should Be a Limitation of Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation? Insights from Recent Randomized Data

Despite the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly improved the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), particularly in a high-risk group of patients, the gap between PCI with his competitor’s coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and/or optimal medical treatment alone was not reduced. In this revision, we highlighted the fact that in recent years landmark randomized studies reported at mid and long-term follow-ups a high incidence of non-cardiac death, cancer incidence, or both in the DES group of patients. The overall incidence of non-cardiac death was significantly higher in the DES vs. the comparator arm: 5.5% and 3.8%, respectively, p = 0.000018, and non-cardiac death appears to be more divergent between DES vs. the comparator at the extended follow-up to expenses of the last one. One of these trials reported five times greater cancer incidence in the DES arm at late follow-up, 5% vs. 0.7% p < 0.0018. We review the potential reason for these unexpected findings, although we can discard that DES biology could be involved in it. Until all these issues are resolved, we propose that DES implantation should be tailored accorded patient age, life expectancy, and lesion complexity.

Comparison of SYNTAX score strata effects of percutaneous and surgical revascularization trials: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The evidence supporting the use of the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score for risk stratification is controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting that reported their outcomes stratified by SYNTAX score, focusing on between-strata comparisons.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases was performed. Incidence rate ratios were pooled with a random effect model. Between-group statistical heterogeneity according to accepted SYNTAX score tertiles was computed in the main analysis. Ratios of incidence rate ratios were computed to appraise between-strata effect, as sensitivity analysis. Primary and secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, respectively. Separate sub-analyses were performed for left main and multivessel disease.

RESULTS

From 425 citations, 6 trials were eventually included (8269 patients [4134 percutaneous coronary interventions, 4135 coronary artery bypass graftings]; mean follow-up: 6.2 years [range: 3.8-10]). Overall, percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significant increase in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (incidence rate ratio, 1.39, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.51) and nonsignificant increase in all-cause mortality (incidence rate ratio, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.40). There was no significant statistical heterogeneity of treatment effect by SYNTAX score for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events or mortality (P = .40 and P = .34, respectively). Results were consistent also for patients with left main and multivessel disease (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events: P = .85 in left main, P = .78 in multivessel disease 0.78; mortality: P = .12 in left main; P = .34 in multivessel disease). Results of analysis based on ratios of incidence rate ratios were consistent with the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant association was found between SYNTAX score and the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. These findings have implications for clinical practice, future guidelines, and the design of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting trials.

Management of failed stenting of the unprotected left main coronary artery

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly accepted as treatment for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease especially in those patients who are unsuitable for cardiac surgery. Treatment of any stent failure is associated with increased complexity and worse clinical outcomes when compared with de novo lesion revascularization. Intracoronary imaging has provided new insight into mechanisms of stent failure and treatment options have developed considerably over the last decade. There is paucity of evidence on the management strategy for stent failure in the specific setting of ULMCA. Treating any left main with PCI requires careful consideration and consequently treatment of failed stents in ULMCA is complex and provides unique challenges. Consequently, we provide an overview of ULMCA stent failure, proposing a tailored algorithm to guide best management and decision in daily clinical practice, with a special focus on intracoronary imaging characterization of causal mechanisms and specific technical and procedural considerations.

Long-term outcomes comparison between surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary disease or left main disease. A systematic review and study level meta-analysis of randomized trials

Recent randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) utilizing drug-eluting stents in patients with left main (LMD) disease and/or multivessel disease (MVD), reported conflicting results. We performed a study level meta-analysis comparing the two interventions for the treatment of LMD or MVD. Using electronic databases, we retrieved 6 trials, between January, 2010 and December, 2022. Five-years Kaplan-Meier curves of endpoints where reconstructed. Comparisons were made by Cox-linear regression frailty model and by landmark analysis. A random-effect method was applied. 8269 patients were included and randomly assigned to CABG (n=4135) or PCI (n=4134). During 5-years follow-up, PCI showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.47; p<0.0001)], spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 1.84; 95% CI, 1.54-2.19; p<0.0001) and repeat coronary revascularization (HR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.72-2.24; p<0.0001). There was no long-term difference between the two interventions for cardiovascular death (p=0.14) and stroke (p=0.20), although the incidence of stroke was higher with CABG within 30-days from intervention (p<0.0001). PCI was associated with an increased risk for composite endpoints (p<0.0001) and major cerebral and cardiovascular events. (p<0.0001). In conclusion, at 5-year follow-up, in patients with LMD and/or MVD there was a significant higher incidence of all-cause mortality, spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization with PCI compared to CABG. The incidence of stroke was higher with CABG during the post-procedural period, but no difference was found during 5-years follow-up. Longer follow-up is mandatory to better define outcome difference between the two interventions.

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

Owing to a large-jeopardized myocardium, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) represents the substantial high-risk anatomical subset of obstructive coronary artery disease. For several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the "gold standard" treatment for LMCAD. Along with advances in CABG, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has also dramatically evolved over time in conjunction with advances in the stent or device technology, adjunct pharmacotherapy, accumulated experiences, and practice changes, establishing its position as a safe, reasonable treatment option for such a complex disease. Until recently, several randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational registries comparing PCI and CABG for LMCAD have shown comparable long-term survival with tradeoffs between early and late risk-benefit of each treatment. Despite this, there are still several unmet issues for revascularization strategy and management for LMCAD. This review article summarized updated knowledge on evolution and clinical evidence on the treatment of LMCAD, with a focus on the comparison of state-of-the-art PCI with CABG.

Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Patients With Intermediate SYNTAX II Score

Patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score have been representing a confusion in our daily practice for interventional cardiologists whether to treat them by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using second generation drug eluting stents or by coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We enrolled 214 consecutive patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score to undergo revascularization (109 patients underwent PCI and 105 patients underwent CABG) after Heart Team discussion. We compared both procedures with respect to the primary composite end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization or stroke) at 40 months post procedure. At 40 months post revascularization procedure, the primary end-point occurred in 22 patients and 15 patients in the PCI and CABG groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-3.14; P = 0.13). No significant differences were detected between both groups regarding the composite incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke. CABG significantly provided better quality of life than PCI for patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score. In patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score, there was no statistically significant difference between the PCI using second generation drug eluting stents and CABG with respect to the incidence of MACCE at 40 months post revascularization procedure.

Difference in spontaneous myocardial infarction and mortality in percutaneous versus surgical revascularization trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

It has been hypothesized that the survival benefit of coronary artery bypass (CABG) compared with percutaneous interventions (PCI) may be associated with the reduction in spontaneous myocardial infarction (SMI) achieved by surgery. This, however, has not been formally investigated. The present meta-analysis aims to evaluate the association between the difference in SMI and in survival in PCI versus CABG randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to identify all RCTs comparing PCI with CABG for the treatment of coronary artery disease and reporting SMI outcomes. Generic inverse variance method was used to pool outcomes as natural logarithms of the incident rate ratios across studies. Subgroup analysis and interaction test were used to compare the difference of the primary outcome among trials that did and did not report a significant reduction in SMI- in the patients treated by CABG. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcome was SMI.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. A statistically significant difference in SMI in favor of CABG was found in 7 of the included trials (35%). Overall, PCI was associated with significantly greater all-cause mortality (incident rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.28). At subgroup analysis, a significant difference in survival in favor of CABG was seen only in trials that reported a significant reduction in SMI in the surgical arm (P for interaction 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In the published PCI versus CABG trials, the reduction in all-cause mortality in the surgical arm is associated with the protective effect of CABG against SMI.

Impact of Complete or Incomplete Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease: The Extended PRECOMBAT Study

Background

Whether complete revascularization (CR) or incomplete revascularization (IR) may affect long-term outcomes after PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is unclear.

Objectives

The authors sought to assess the impact of CR or IR on 10-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for LMCA disease.

Methods

In the PRECOMBAT (Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) 10-year extended study, the authors evaluated the effect of PCI and CABG on long-term outcomes according to completeness of revascularization. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (composite of mortality from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization).

Results

Among 600 randomized patients (PCI, n = 300 and CABG, n = 300), 416 patients (69.3%) had CR and 184 (30.7%) had IR; 68.3% of PCI patients and 70.3% of CABG patients underwent CR, respectively. The 10-year MACCE rates were not significantly different between PCI and CABG among patients with CR (27.8% vs 25.1%, respectively; adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.81-1.73) and among those with IR (31.6% vs 21.3%, respectively; adjusted HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.92-2.92) (P for interaction = 0.35). There was also no significant interaction between the status of CR and the relative effect of PCI and CABG on all-cause mortality, serious composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and repeat revascularization.

Conclusions

In this 10-year follow-up of PRECOMBAT, the authors found no significant difference between PCI and CABG in the rates of MACCE and all-cause mortality according to CR or IR status. (Ten-Year Outcomes of PRE-COMBAT Trial [PRECOMBAT], NCT03871127; PREmier of Randomized COMparison of Bypass Surgery Versus AngioplasTy Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease [PRECOMBAT], NCT00422968).

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies for Stable Coronary Artery Disease Following the ISCHEMIA Trial

Until recently, coronary revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention has been regarded as the standard choice for stable coronary artery disease (CAD), particularly for patients with a significant burden of ischemia. However, in conjunction with remarkable advances in adjunctive medical therapy and a deeper understanding of its long-term prognosis from recent large-scale clinical trials, including ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), the approach to stable CAD has changed drastically. Although the updated evidence from recent randomized clinical trials will likely modify the recommendations for future clinical practice guidelines, there are still unresolved and unmet issues in Asia, where prevalence and practice patterns are markedly different from those in Western countries. Herein, the authors discuss perspectives on: 1) assessing the diagnostic probability of patients with stable CAD; 2) application of noninvasive imaging tests; 3) initiation and titration of medical therapy; and 4) evolution of revascularization procedures in the modern era.

Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity-Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

Patients with diabetes have poorer outcomes with coronary artery disease (CAD) and pose a unique clinical population for revascularization. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched observational studies (PMS) to compare the clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify RCT and PMS studies comparing CABG with PCI in patients with diabetes with concurrent CAD. Studies were pooled using the random-effects model to perform a pairwise meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included long-term all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and repeat revascularization. Meta-regression was used to explore the effects of baseline risk factors on primary outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs and 9 PMS with 28,846 patients were included. PCI was associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.34, P < 0.001), cardiac mortality (RR = 1.52, P < 0.001), MI (RR = 1.51, P = 0.009), MACCE (RR = 1.65, P < 0.001), and repeat revascularization (RR = 2.48, P < 0.001) compared with CABG. There was no difference in long-term stroke between the 2 groups (RR = 0.95, P = 0.82). At meta-regression, a greater proportion of female patients in studies was associated with a decreased protective benefit for CABG for long-term all-cause mortality but an increased protective benefit for long-term MI and repeat revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Revascularization of patients with diabetes using CABG is associated with significantly reduced long-term mortality, MI, MACCE, and repeat revascularizations. Future studies exploring the influence of gender on revascularization outcomes are necessary to elucidate the ideal treatment modality in patients with diabetes.

Minimally invasive off-pump anaortic coronary artery bypass (MACAB)

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass has enabled coronary artery bypass graft to compete with the appeal of less invasive percutaneous coronary procedures. Favorable results of coronary artery bypass surgery performed without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass and without touching the aorta (anOPCAB) have enabled the development and use of minimally invasive methods.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2021, 112 patients underwent multivessel coronary bypass surgery performed using a minimally invasive method through a small thoracotomy in the left chest with off-pump, anaortic, and all-arterial grafts (Minimally Invasive Off-Pump Anaortic Coronary Artery Bypass [MACAB]). Patient data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Eight series from the literature using the multivessel mini-OPCAB and MACAB technique were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Collectively, from the literature, 2729 patients underwent an average of 2.4 bypasses with an early mortality rate of 0.7% and a stroke rate of 0.16%. In our MACAB case series, 112 patients underwent an average of 2.9 bypasses with a mortality rate of 1.8% and a stroke rate of 0%.

CONCLUSION

MACAB can be performed safely by experienced surgeons and reduces neurological injury and surgical trauma and may be a good alternative for multivessel stenting. Simulation systems are essential for its dissemination, and teams dedicated to coronary surgery-with subspecialty expertise-are necessary to achieve good outcomes.

Sex differences in mortality after first time, isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Reports of sex-specific differences in mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABGS) are contradictory. The review aim was to determine whether CABGS is differentially efficacious than alternative procedures by sex, on short- and longer-term mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Inclusion criteria: English language, randomized controlled trials from 2010, comparing isolated CABGS to alternative revascularization. Analyses were included Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects modelling, risk of bias (Cochrane RoB2), and quality assessment (CONSORT). PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42020181673. The search yielded 4459 citations, and full-text review of 29 articles revealed nine studies for inclusion with variable time to follow-up. Risk of mortality for women was similar in pooled analyses [risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.05, P = 0.26] but higher in sensitivity analyses excluding 'high risk' patients (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.48, P = 0.04). At 30 days and 10 years, in contrast to men, women had an 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66-1.02, P = 0.08) and 19% (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P = 0.01) mortality risk reduction. At 1-2 years women had a 7% (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.69-1.64, P = 0.77), and at 2-5 years a 25% increase in risk of mortality compared with men (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.53, P = 0.03). Women were increasingly under-represented over time comprising 41% (30 days) to 16.7% (10 years) of the pooled population.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis revealed inconsistent sex-specific differences in mortality after CABGS. Trials with sex-specific stratification are required to ensure appropriate sex-differentiated treatments for revascularization.

Quantitative Flow Ratio Is Related to Anatomic Left Main Stem Lesion Parameters as Assessed by Intravascular Imaging

Introduction: Previously, an association between anatomic left main stem (LMS) lesion parameters, as described by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR), was shown. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel, promising technique which can assess functional stenosis relevance based only on angiography. However, as little is known about the relationship between anatomic LMS parameters and QFR, it was thus investigated in this study. Methods: In 53 patients with LMS disease, we tested the association between anatomic assessment using OCT (n = 28) or IVUS (n = 25) on the one hand and functional assessment as determined by QFR on the other hand. LMS-QFR was measured using a dedicated approach, averaging QFR over left anterior descending (LAD) and circumflex (LCX) and manually limiting segment of interest to LMS. Results: The minimal luminal area of the LMS (LMS-MLA) as measured by intravascular imaging showed a consistent correlation with QFR (R = 0.61, p < 0.001). QFR could predict a LMS-MLA < 6 mm2 with very good diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.919) and a LMS-MLA < 4.5 mm2 with good accuracy (AUC 0.798). Similar results were obtained for other stenosis parameters. Conclusions: QFR might be a valuable tool to assess LMS disease. Further studies focusing on patient outcomes are needed to further validate the effectiveness of this approach.

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.

Revascularization strategies for patients with established chronic coronary syndrome

Coronary artery disease is the most common type of cardiovascular disease, leading to high mortality rates worldwide. Although the vast majority can be treated effectively and safely by medical therapy, revascularization strategies remain essential for numerous patients. Outcomes of both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting improve in a rapid pace, resulting from technical innovation and ongoing research. Progress has been achieved by technical improvements in coronary stents, optimal coronary target and graft selection, and the availability of minimally invasive surgical strategies. Besides technical progress, evidence-based patient-tailored decision-making by the Heart Team is the basic precondition for optimal outcome. The combination of fast innovation and long-term clinical evaluations creates a dynamic field. Research outcomes should be carefully interpreted according to the techniques used and the trial's design. Therefore, more and more trial outcomes suggest that revascularization strategies should be tailored towards the specific patient. Although the European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines on myocardial revascularization date from 2018 and a large variety of trial outcomes on revascularization strategies in chronic coronary syndrome have been published since, we aim to provide an updated overview within this review.

Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Bypass Surgery for Patients With Left Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial

BACKGROUND

The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) demonstrated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, no significant difference between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents for the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality at 5 years was higher with PCI. Long-term cost-effectiveness of these 2 strategies has heretofore not been evaluated.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2014, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=957) or PCI (n=948). Costs ($2019) were assessed over 5 years using resource-based costing and Medicare reimbursement rates. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire. Five-year EXCEL data in combination with US lifetables were used to develop a Markov model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was considered highly cost-effective.

RESULTS

Index revascularization procedure costs were $4,850/patient higher with CABG, and total costs for the index hospitalization were $17 610/patient higher with CABG ($32 297 versus $19 687, P<0.001). Cumulative 5-year costs were $20 449/patient higher with CABG. CABG was projected to increase lifetime costs by $21 551 while increasing quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44 235/QALY. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis using mortality hazard ratios from a meta-analysis of all randomized CABG versus PCI in left main disease trials, the gain associated with CABG was 0.08 to 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $139 775 to $232 710/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on data from the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for patients with significant left main coronary artery disease. However, this conclusion is sensitive to the long-term mortality rates with the 2 strategies, and CABG is no longer highly cost-effective when substituting the pooled treatment effect from the 4 major PCI versus CABG trials for left main disease.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

Meta-Analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Narrowing

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) have reported conflicting results. We performed a systematic review up to May 23, 2021, and 1-stage reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to compare outcomes between both groups. The primary outcome was 10-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization at 5 years. We performed individual patient data meta-analysis using published Kaplan-Meier curves to provide individual data points in coordinates and numbers at risk were used to increase the calibration accuracy of the reconstructed data. Shared frailty model or, when proportionality assumptions were not met, a restricted mean survival time model were fitted to compare outcomes between treatment groups. Of 583 articles retrieved, 5 RCTs were included. A total of 4,595 patients from these 5 RCTs were randomly assigned to PCI (n = 2,297) or CABG (n = 2,298). The cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality after PCI and CABG was 12.0% versus 10.6%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.093, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.925 to 1.292; p = 0.296). PCI conferred similar time-to-MI (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.006, 95% CI 0.992 to 1.021, p=0.391) and stroke (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.005, 95% CI 0.998 to 1.013, p = 0.133) at 5 years. Unplanned revascularization was more frequent after PCI than CABG (HR 1.807, 95% CI 1.524 to 2.144, p <0.001) at 5 years. This meta-analysis using reconstructed participant-level time-to-event data showed no statistically significant difference in cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality between PCI versus CABG in the treatment of LMCAD.

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.

Sex-Specific Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease differ between men and women.

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend either PCI or CABG for patients with unprotected LMCA disease and low-to-intermediate anatomical complexity. However, it is unclear whether these guidelines apply to women, who are underrepresented in clinical trials.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed to identify studies reporting sex-specific outcomes after PCI versus CABG in patients with LMCA disease. Trial level hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by random-effects modelling.

RESULTS

Eight (8) studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 13,066 patients (24.3% women). In both sexes, there was no difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke (HR in women: 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.40; HR in men: 1.04, 95% CI 0.92-1.17). However, both sexes were more likely to require repeat revascularisation after PCI. There was no interaction between sex and treatment effect for the primary composite endpoint nor for the individual outcomes of death, stroke and repeat revascularisation. However, in women the risk of myocardial infarction was higher after PCI compared with CABG (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06-3.18), with a trend toward the opposite in men (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54-1.13; p-interaction=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG have a comparable risk of the composite outcome of death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients undergoing revascularisation for LMCA disease, with no significant interaction between sex and treatment effect.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Treating In-Stent Restenosis in Unprotected-Left Main: LM-DRAGON-Registry

Background

Data regarding management of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery in-stent restenosis (LM-ISR) are scarce.

Objectives

This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of unprotected LM-ISR.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent PCI or CABG for unprotected LM-ISR were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stroke.

Results

A total of 305 patients were enrolled, of which 203(66.6%) underwent PCI and 102(33.4%) underwent CABG. At 30-day follow-up, a lower risk of cardiac death was observed in the PCI group, compared with the CABG-treated group (2.1% vs. 7.1%, HR 3.48, 95%CI 1.01–11.8, p = 0.04). At a median of 3.5 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1.3–5.5] follow-up, MACCE occurred in 27.7% vs. 29.6% (HR 0.82, 95%CI 0.52–1.32, p = 0.43) in PCI- and CABG-treated patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG in cardiac death (9.9% vs. 18.4%; HR 1.56, 95%CI 0.81–3.00, p = 0.18), MI (7.9% vs. 5.1%, HR 0.44, 95%CI 0.15–1.27, p = 0.13), or stroke (2.1% vs. 4.1%, HR 1.79, 95%CI 0.45–7.16, p = 0.41). TVR was more frequently needed in the PCI group (15.2% vs. 6.1%, HR 0.35, 95%CI 0.15–0.85, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

This analysis of patients with LM-ISR revealed a lower incidence of cardiac death in PCI compared with CABG in short-term follow-up. During the long-term follow-up, no differences in MACCE were observed, but patients treated with CABG less often required TVR.

Visual overview

A visual overview is available for this article.

Registration

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04968977.

Polymer Coating Integrity, Thrombogenicity and Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Provisional Stenting Technique in the Left Main Bifurcation Setting: Insights from an In-Vitro Model

Currently, the provisional stenting technique is the gold standard in revascularization of lesions located in the left main (LM) bifurcation. The benefit of the routine kissing balloon technique (KBI) in bifurcation lesions is still debated, particularly following the single stent treatment. We compared the latest-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) with no side branch (SB) dilatation “keep it open” technique (KIO) vs. KBI technique vs. bifurcation dedicated drug-eluting stent (BD-DES) implantation. In vitro testing was performed under a static condition in bifurcation silicone vessel models. All the devices were implanted in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations. As a result, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis demonstrated a statistically higher area of high shear rate in the KIO group when compared to KBI. Likewise, the maximal shear rate was higher in number in the KIO group. Floating strut count based on the OCT imaging was significantly higher in KIO than in KBI and BD-DES. Furthermore, according to OTC analysis, the thrombus area was numerically higher in both KIO and KBI than in the BD-DES. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis shows the highest degree of strut coating damage in the KBI group. This model demonstrated significant differences in CFD analysis at SB ostia with and without KBI optimization in the LM setting. The adoption of KBI was related to a meaningful reduction of flow disturbances in conventional DES and achieved results similar to BD-DES.

Outcomes of Left Main Revascularization after Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Surgery

Background

This study is aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) treatment with contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a "real-world" population.

Methods and Results

Overall, 558 consecutive patients with ULMCAD (mean age 71 ± 9 years, male gender 81%) undergoing PCI or CABG were compared. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. Diabetes was present in 29% and acute coronary syndrome in 56%; mean EuroSCORE was 11 ± 8. High coronary complexity (SYNTAX score >32) was present in 50% of patients. The primary composite endpoint was similar after PCI and CABG up to 4 years (15.5 ± 3.1% vs. 17.1 ± 2.6%; p=0.585). The primary end point was also comparable in a two propensity score matched cohorts. Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequently needed in PCI than in CABG (5.5% vs. 1.5%; p=0.010). By multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus (HR 2.00; p=0.003) and EuroSCORE (HR 3.71; p < 0.001) were the only independent predictors associated with long-term outcome.

Conclusions

In a "real-world" population with ULMCAD, a contemporary revascularization strategy by PCI or CABG showed similar long-term clinical outcome regardless of the coronary complexity.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Present Status and Future Perspectives

For several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting has been regarded as the standard choice of revascularization for significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. However, in conjunction with remarkable advancement of device technology and adjunctive pharmacology, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) offers a more expeditious approach with rapid recovery and is a safe and effective alternative in appropriately selected patients with LMCA disease. Several landmark randomized clinical trials showed that PCI with drug-eluting stents for LMCA disease is a safe option with similar long-term survival rates to coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, especially in those with low and intermediate anatomic risk. Although it is expected that the updated evidence from recent randomized clinical trials will determine the next guidelines for the foreseeable future, there are still unresolved and unmet issues of LMCA revascularization and PCI strategy. This paper provides a comprehensive review on the evolution and an update on the management of LMCA disease.

Trends in Clinical Practice and Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery

Background

The use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat unprotected left main coronary artery disease has expanded rapidly in the past decade. We aimed to describe nationwide trends in clinical practice and outcomes after PCI for left main coronary artery disease.

Methods and Results

Patients (n=4085) enrolled in the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry) as undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease from 2005 to 2017 were included. A count regression model was used to analyze time‐related differences in procedural characteristics. The 3‐year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event rate defined as death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization was calculated with the Kaplan‐Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard model. The number of annual PCI procedures grew from 121 in 2005 to 589 in 2017 (389%). The increase was greater for men (479%) and individuals with diabetes (500%). Periprocedural complications occurred in 7.9%, decreasing from 10% to 6% during the study period. A major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event occurred in 35.7% of patients, falling from 45.6% to 23.9% (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41–0.78; P=0.001). Radial artery access rose from 21.5% to 74.2% and intracoronary diagnostic procedures from 14.0% to 53.3%. Use of bare‐metal stents and first‐generation drug‐eluting stents fell from 19.0% and 71.9%, respectively, to 0, with use of new‐generation drug‐eluting stents increasing to 95.2%.

Conclusions

Recent changes in clinical practice relating to PCI for left main coronary artery disease are characterized by a 4‐fold rise in procedures conducted, increased use of evidence‐based adjunctive treatment strategies, intracoronary diagnostics, newer stents, and more favorable outcomes.