Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Bypass Surgery in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Disease

Off-pump bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting in patients with left main coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

To compare postoperative outcomes in patients with left main coronary artery disease who underwent off-pump isolated coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel disease using either skeletonized bilateral or single internal thoracic artery (ITA).

METHODS

Among 1583 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in our hospital between 2002 and 2022, 604 patients with left main coronary artery disease underwent single (n = 169) or bilateral (n = 435) ITA grafting. We compared postoperative outcomes between the two groups after adjusting preoperative characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting method, the sum of weights was 599.74 in BITA group and 621.64 in SITA group. There was no significant difference in postoperative deep sternal wound infection (p = 0.227) and 30-day mortality (p = 0.612). Follow-up was completed in 98.7% (596/604) of the patients, and the mean follow-up duration was 6.7 years. At 10 years, the overall survival following bilateral versus single ITA grafting was 71.2% and 60.6%, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.040), and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was 63.3% and 46.3%, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.008). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard models, bilateral ITA grafting was significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.706, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.504-0.987; p = 0.042) and MACCE (HR: 0.671, 95% CI: 0.499-0.902; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral skeletonized ITA grafting is associated with lower rates of all-cause death and MACCE than single ITA grafting in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing off-pump CABG.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization in Patients with Impaired Renal Function: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

INTRODUCTION

The evidence about the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease and impaired renal function is limited. Thus, we aimed to compare the outcomes of LMCA disease revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] vs. coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) in patients with and without impaired renal function.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 2,138 patients recruited from 14 centers between 2015 and 2,019. We compared patients with impaired renal function who had PCI (n= 316) to those who had CABG (n = 121) and compared patients with normal renal function who had PCI (n = 906) to those who had CABG (n = 795). The study outcomes were in-hospital and follow-up major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

RESULTS

Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of in-hospital MACCE was significantly higher in CABG compared to PCI in patients with impaired renal function (odds ratio [OR]: 8.13 [95% CI: 4.19-15.76], p < 0.001) and normal renal function (OR: 2.59 [95% CI: 1.79-3.73]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in follow-up MACCE between CABG and PCI in patients with impaired renal function (HR: 1.14 [95% CI: 0.71-1.81], p = 0.585) and normal renal function (HR: 1.12 [0.90-1.39], p = 0.312).

CONCLUSIONS

PCI could have an advantage over CABG in revascularization of LMCA disease in patients with impaired renal function regarding in-hospital MACCE. The follow-up MACCE was comparable between PCI and CABG in patients with impaired and normal renal function.

A large, prospective, multicentre study of left main PCI using a latest-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent: the ROLEX study

BACKGROUND

Data on left main (LM) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) have mostly been obtained in studies using drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms without dedicated large-vessel devices and with limited expansion capability.

AIMS

Our study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of LM PCI with the latest-generation Resolute Onyx DES.

METHODS

ROLEX (Revascularization Of LEft main with resolute onyX) is a prospective, multicentre study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03316833) enrolling patients with unprotected LM coronary artery disease and a SYNTAX score <33 undergoing PCI with the Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent, that includes dedicated extra-large vessel platforms. The primary endpoint (EP) was target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (ID-TLR), at 1 year. All events were adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee. An independent core lab analysed all procedural angiograms.

RESULTS

A total of 450 patients (mean age 71.8 years, SYNTAX score 24.5±7.2, acute coronary syndrome in 53%) were enrolled in 26 centres. Of these, 77% of subjects underwent PCI with a single-stent and 23% with a 2-stent technique (8% double kissing [DK] crush, 6% culotte, 9% T/T and small protrusion [TAP] stenting). Intravascular imaging guidance was used in 45% (42% intravascular ultrasound [IVUS], 3% optical coherence tomography [OCT]). At 1 year, the primary EP incidence was 5.1% (cardiac death 2.7%, TVMI 2.7%, ID-TLR 2.0%). The definite/probable stent thrombosis rate was 1.1%. In a prespecified adjusted subanalysis, the primary EP incidence was significantly lower in patients undergoing IVUS/OCT-guided versus angio-guided PCI (2.0 vs 7.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.58; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, multicentre, prospective registry, LM PCI with the Resolute Onyx DES showed good safety and efficacy at 1 year, particularly when guided by intracoronary imaging.

Left Main Stem Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Does On-Site Surgical Cover Make a Difference?

BACKGROUND

Nonsurgical centers (NSC) contribute significantly to the capacity of overall percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United Kingdom. Although previous studies have demonstrated similar PCI outcomes in surgical centers (SC) versus NSC, it is unknown whether this applies to more complex procedures such as left main stem (LMS) PCI. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes of LMS PCI performed across SC and NSC in England and Wales.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of procedures between January 2006 and March 2020 was performed using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database and stratified according to the surgical status of the center. The primary outcomes assessed were in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, all-cause mortality, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium stage 3 to 5 bleeding.

RESULTS

Forty thousand seven hundred forty-four patients underwent LMS PCI during the period, of which 13 922 (34.2%) had their procedure performed at an NSC. The proportion of LMS PCI performed in NSC increased >2-fold (15.9% in 2006 to 36.7% in 2020). There was no association between surgical cover location and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.69-1.22]), in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.79-1.25]), or emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.06]). NSC had lower Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 to 5 bleeding complications (odds ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.34-0.82]).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an increase in LMS PCI volumes at NSC, particularly elective LMS PCI. LMS PCI performed at NSC was not associated with increased mortality, in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, or emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery, despite higher disease complexity.

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 Differences in Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Graft for Left Main Disease: From the DELTA Registries

Background

Controversy exists over whether sex has significant interaction with revascularization strategy for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Higher mortality has been reported among women treated with percutaneous coronary intervention compared with coronary artery bypass grafting.

Methods and Results

The DELTA (Drug‐Eluting Stents for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) and DELTA‐2 registries are international, multicentric registries evaluating the outcomes of subjects undergoing coronary revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accidents. The population consisted of 6253 patients, including 1689 (27%) women. Women were older and more likely to have diabetes and chronic kidney disease than men (P<0.05). At a median follow‐up of 29 months (interquartile range 12–49), a significant interaction between sex and revascularization strategy was observed for the primary end point (p_int=0.012) and all‐cause death (p_int=0.037). Among women, compared with percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with lower risk of the primary end point (event rate 9.5% versus 15.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35–0.79, P<0.001) and all‐cause death (event rate 5.6% versus 11.7% AHR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30–0.82) and no significant differences were observed in men.

Conclusions

In women undergoing coronary revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with lower risk of death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accidents whereas no significant differences between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention were observed in men. Further dedicated studies are needed to determine the optimal revascularization strategy in women with unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Very Long-term Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Main Coronary Disease

Background

Limited data are available on the long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) vs bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease.

Methods

In this observational cohort of the Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty vs Surgical Revascularization (MAIN-COMPARE) registry, we evaluated patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis who received DES or BMS between January 2000 and June 2006. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 10 years. Adjusted outcomes were compared using propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Results

A total of 1102 patients underwent DES (n = 784) or BMS (n = 318) during the study period. At 10 years, the adjusted rate of the primary outcome was significantly lower in DES group than in the BMS group (27.9% vs 37.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.94; P = 0.02). The adjusted 10-year mortality rate was significantly lower in DES group than in the BMS group (20.6% vs 29.6%; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01), whereas the 10-year rate of MI was similar between the 2 groups (9.9% vs 11.0%; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.54-1.59; P = 0.78). DES use was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of target-lesion revascularization (10.2% vs 21.8%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.61; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this 10-year follow-up study in patients with LMCA disease, DES use was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of the composite of death or MI, mortality, and target-lesion revascularization, when compared with BMS.

The expansion of no-touch harvesting sequential vein graft after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

Background and Aim of the Study

Many studies support that the no‐touch (NT) procedure can improve the patency rate of vein grafts. However, it is not clear that the sequential vein graft early expansion in the NT technique during off‐pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This study will explore this issue.

Methods

This was a prospective single‐center randomized controlled clinical trial. A total of 100 patients undergoing off‐pump CABG with the sequential saphenous graft were randomly assigned to two groups: the NT and conventional (CON) groups. Perioperative and postoperative data were collected during the hospital stay. The mean diameter of sequential grafts was measured using cardiac computed tomography angiography 3 months after the operation.

Results

There was a significant difference in the average diameter of sequential grafts between the two groups (NT: [2.98 ± 0.42], CON: [3.26 ± 0.51], p = .005). There was no difference in occlusion of sequential venous grafts between the two groups (NT: 4/48 [8.3%], CON: 5/49 [10.2%], p = 1.000). There were differences in surgery time between the two groups (NT: 220 [188,240], CON: 190 [175,230], p = .009).

Conclusions

The sequential graft early expansion in the NT technique is not as pronounced as that in the conventional technique, which may have a long‐term protective effect on the grafts.

Ten-Year Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Suffering from Left Main Coronary Disease: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In this meta-analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the 10-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) suffering from left main coronary artery disease (LMCD).

METHODS

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov , Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google scholar were searched for publications comparing 10-year outcomes of PCI versus CABG in patients with T2DM suffering from LMCD. Cardiovascular outcomes were considered as the clinical endpoints. Statistical analysis was carried out using RevMan software (version 5.4). Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the data after analysis.

RESULTS

Eight studies (three randomized trials and five observational studies) with a total number of 3835 participants with T2DM were included in this analysis; 2340 participants were assigned to the PCI group and 1495 participants were assigned to the CABG group. Results of this analysis showed that mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-1.00; P = 0.05), myocardial infarction (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.80; P = 0.002), repeated revascularization (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26-0.46; P = 0.00001), and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18-0.38; P = 0.00001) were significantly higher with PCI when compared to CABG in these patients with diabetes and LMCD. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were also significantly higher with PCI at 10 years (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.92; P = 0.01). However, CABG was associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.39-3.37; P = 0.0007).

CONCLUSIONS

During a long-term follow-up time period of 10 years, PCI was associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to CABG in these patients with T2DM suffering from LMCD. However, a significantly higher risk of stroke was observed with CABG. This piece of information might be vital in order to carefully choose and prevent complications following revascularization in such patients.

Outcome of left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention in a UK nonsurgical center: A 5-year clinical experience

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcome of unprotected left main stem (LMS) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a large UK nonsurgical center.

BACKGROUND

PCI on unprotected LMS is increasingly regarded as a viable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with comparable outcome and safety profile in select groups. The safety and efficacy of unprotected LMS PCI without on-site surgical back up has not been reported.

METHODS

Data on all unprotected LMS PCI performed between January 2011 and December 2015, was collected from the local PCI database and electronic patient records. In hospital and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]) was recorded.

RESULTS

249 patients had unprotected LMS intervention during the study period. 77% of patients (n = 192) were male and mean age was 70 ± 12 years. 31% (n = 78) of cases were elective, 44% (n = 109) NSTEMI, and 25% (n = 62) STEMI. Anatomical distribution: 19% (n = 47) ostial left main, 31% (n = 77) shaft, and 50% (n = 125) bifurcation. The mean SYNTAX score was 24.4 ± 10.6. 22% (n = 55) of patients had severe LV impairment preprocedure and 13% (n = 33) were in cardiogenic shock at presentation. 35% (14%) required IABP support. The vast majority (98.4%) of procedures were successful. No patients required emergency transfer for CABG surgery. There were 25 (10%) in-hospital deaths. 68% of in-hospital deaths occurred in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI. 72% of patients who died were in cardiogenic shock at presentation. The 12-month MACE rate was 17.2%. Death occurred in 11.6%, MI in 2.4%, TVR in 2.4%, and stroke in 0.8% of patients.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the safety and efficacy of unprotected LMS PCI in a high volume non-surgical center.

Factors associated with left ventricular reverse remodelling after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is sometimes considered as an alternative therapeutic strategy to surgical revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the types or conditions of patients that receive the clinical benefit of left ventricular reverse remodelling (LVRR) remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the determinants of LVRR following PCI in CAD patients with reduced LVEF. From 4394 consecutive patients who underwent PCI, a total of 286 patients with reduced LV systolic function (LVEF < 50% at initial left ventriculography) were included in the analysis. LVRR was defined as LV end-systolic volume reduction ≥ 15% and improvement of LVEF ≥ 10% at 6 months follow-up left ventriculography. Patients were divided into LVRR (n = 63) and non-LVRR (n = 223) groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) intervention was significantly associated with LVRR (P = 0.007, odds ratios [OR] 4.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54-14.38), while prior PCI (P = 0.001, OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.66), presence of in-stent restenosis (P = 0.016, OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12-0.81), and presence of de-novo stenosis (P = 0.038, OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.95) were negatively associated with LVRR. These data suggest the potential prognostic benefit of unprotected LMCA intervention for LVRR and importance of angiographic follow-up in patients with CAD and LV systolic dysfunction.

Concomitant multi-vessel disease is associated with a lower procedural death rate in patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions within the left main coronary artery (from the ORPKI registry)

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we aimed to distinguish differences in the procedural complication rate in a group of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) between patients with isolated LMCA disease and multi-vessel disease (MVD) with LMCA involvement and to identify their predictors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We assessed 221,187 patients from the Polish Cardiovascular Intervention Society national registry (ORPKI) regarding all PCI procedures performed in Poland in 2015 and 2016. We extracted data of 1,819 patients with isolated LMCA disease and 3,718 patients with MVD and LMCA involvement. We compared those two groups in terms of procedural complications and their predictors.

RESULTS

The overall rate of procedural complications was significantly higher in patients treated with LMCA PCI both in the group of patients with isolated LMCA (6.5%) and the group with MVD with LMCA involvement (7.3%) compared to the non-LMCA PCI group (1.9%, p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis confirmed that MVD with LMCA involvement is an independent predictor of decreased risk of procedural death in the overall group of patients undergoing PCI of the LMCA (odds ratio: 0.583; 95% confidence interval: 0.4-0.848; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The MVD involvement in patients treated with PCI of the LMCA may play a protective role. Patients with isolated LMCA involvement undergoing PCI should be subjected to special care and protected by various methods, such as devices to support left ventricle function.

Outcomes following surgical revascularization with single versus bilateral internal thoracic arterial grafts in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: insights from the EXCEL trial†

OBJECTIVES

Observational data suggest that the use of a single internal thoracic artery (SITA) may result in inferior outcomes compared with bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) use for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-a finding not yet supported by randomized trial outcomes. However, the optimal number of internal thoracic artery grafts in patients with left main coronary artery disease has not been investigated.

METHODS

The EXCEL trial randomized 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease to percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. Among the 905 patients undergoing CABG, 688 (76.0%) received SITA and 217 (24.0%) received BITA. Differences in clinical event rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox regression was used to adjust for differences in baseline covariates.

RESULTS

Compared to SITA, patients treated with BITA were younger (66.1 ± 9.5 vs 64.5 ± 9.3 years, P = 0.020), were less likely female (24.3% vs 14.3%, P = 0.002) and diabetic (28.8% vs 15.2%, P < 0.001), and had a lower prevalence of peripheral vessel disease (10.2% vs 5.5%, P = 0.040). The unadjusted 3-year composite primary endpoint of death, stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) occurred in 15.6% of SITA vs 11.6% of BITA patients (P = 0.17). The SITA group tended to have a higher 3-year rate of all-cause death compared with the BITA group (6.7% vs 3.3%; P = 0.070). Stroke, MI and ischaemia-driven revascularization outcomes were not significantly different between groups. After adjusting for baseline differences, neither the composite of death, stroke or MI [hazard ratio (HR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.78; P = 0.62] nor mortality (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.60-3.12; P = 0.46) was significantly higher with SITA. The rehospitalization rate after 3 years was higher in the SITA group (35.8% vs 26.0%, P = 0.008), a difference which was no longer present after multivariable adjustment (HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93-1.74; P = 0.13). Sternal wound dehiscence within 30 days did not occur more often in the BITA group compared to the SITA group (1.8% vs 2.2%, P > 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

In the EXCEL trial, there were no clinical differences at 3 years between SITA or BITA revascularization in patients with left main coronary artery disease.

Long-term clinical outcomes after a percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease excluded from clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Major randomized clinical trials assessing clinical outcomes in patients who underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left main coronary artery disease excluded some high-risk subsets. Whether the effectiveness and safety of a percutaneous approach in this group of patients are comparable with those observed in clinical trials is unclear. We aimed to explore the long-term outcomes of contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES)-based revascularization for left main coronary artery disease in patients presenting with one or more clinical or angiographic characteristics who would have precluded inclusion in randomized trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between April 2003 and December 2011, 340 consecutive patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis of at least 50% who underwent successful PCI with DES at Sejong General Hospital (Bucheon, Republic of Korea) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were classified into the exclusion group (group E; n=120) and the inclusion group (group I; n=220) according to the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria utilized in clinical trials.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up of 86 (52-114) months, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events occurred in 69 (31.4%) patients in group I and 46 (38.3%) patients in group E (P=0.155). In the propensity score-matched population, group E was not associated with a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio: 1.42, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-2.65, P=0.758). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in five patients of group I, with no cases in group E.

CONCLUSION

In our real-world registry, about a third of patients who underwent PCI for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis had one or more high-risk characteristics or comorbid conditions that represent exclusion criteria of previous randomized trials. PCI using DES is feasible in these patients.

Prognostic performance of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing revascularisation: a post hoc analysis of the EXCEL trial

AIMS

Accurate risk prediction in patients undergoing revascularisation is essential. We aimed to assess the predictive performance of Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk models in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting stents (PCI-EES).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The predictive performance of STS risk models for perioperative mortality, stroke and renal failure was evaluated for their discriminative ability (C statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit-test; χ2 and p-values) among patients with LMCAD undergoing PCI-EES (n=935) and CABG (n=923) from the randomised EXCEL trial. STS risk scores, in CABG patients, showed good discrimination for 30-day mortality and average discrimination for stroke (C statistic 0.730 and 0.629, respectively) with average calibration. For PCI, STS risk scores had no discrimination for mortality (C statistic 0.507), yet good discrimination (C statistic 0.751) and calibration for stroke. The predictive performance for renal failure was good for CABG (C statistic 0.82), yet poor for PCI (C statistic 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with LMCAD from the EXCEL trial, STS risk models showed good predictive performance for CABG yet lacked predictive performance for PCI for perioperative mortality and renal failure. The STS stroke risk model was surprisingly more discriminating in PCI compared to CABG. Improved and procedure-specific risk prediction instruments are needed to accurately estimate adverse events after LMCAD revascularisation by CABG and PCI. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01205776.

Long noncoding RNA NEAT1/microRNA-125a axis predicts increased major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event risk independently in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease underwent coronary artery bypass grafting

Background

The study aimed to investigate the long noncoding RNA nuclear‐enriched abundant transcript 1 (lnc‐NEAT1) and microRNA‐125a (miR‐125a) expressions, and further explore the role of lnc‐NEAT1/miR‐125a axis in predicting major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) risk in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods

A total of 280 patients with ULMCAD underwent CABG were consecutively enrolled in our prospective study, and their plasma samples were collected before CABG for the detection of lnc‐NEAT1 and miR‐125a expressions by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Lnc‐NEAT1/miR‐125a axis was calculated via dividing lnc‐NEAT1 by miR‐125a. After CABG, regular follow‐up was continued until MACCE occurrence or 36 months.

Results

Lnc‐NEAT1 expression, miR‐125a expression, and lnc‐NEAT1/miR‐125a axis were 0.998 (IQR: 0.440‐1.720, range: 0.116‐5.771), 0.997 (IQR: 0.461‐1.650, range: 0.055‐3.621), and 1.018 (IQR: 0.384‐2.782, range: 0.041‐52.832), respectively. And lnc‐NEAT1 was negatively associated with miR‐125a. The 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐year MACCE occurrence was 19 (6.8%), 29 (10.4%), and 38 (13.6%), respectively. Lnc‐NEAT1/miR‐125a axis (χ² = 11.207, P = .001) and lnc‐NEAT1 expression (χ² = 5.345, P = .021) positively associated with accumulating MACCE occurrence, while miR‐125a expression (χ² = 5.869, P = .015) negatively correlated with accumulating MACCE occurrence. Notably, lnc‐NEAT1/miR‐125a axis presented numerically better predictive value compared with lnc‐NEAT1 or miR‐125a alone for MACCE risk. Furthermore, lnc‐NEAT1/miR‐125a axis high, elderly age, increased BMI, diabetes, previous stroke, LVEF, and higher disease extent (all P < .05) were independent predictive factors for increased accumulating MACCE occurrence.

Conclusion

Lnc‐NEAT1/miR‐125a axis, as a combined index, presents potential value to be a prognostic biomarker for MACCE risk in ULMCAD management.

Contemporary Use and Trends in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States: An Analysis of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Research to Practice Initiative

Importance

Recent data support percutaneous revascularization as an alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main (ULM) coronary lesions. However, the relevance of these trials to current practice is unclear, as patterns and outcomes of ULM percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in contemporary US clinical practice are not well studied.

Objective

To define the current practice of ULM PCI and its outcomes and compare these with findings reported in clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional multicenter analysis included data collected from 1662 institutions participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry between April 2009 and July 2016. Data were collected from 33 128 patients undergoing ULM PCI and 3 309 034 patients undergoing all other PCI. Data were analyzed from June 2017 to May 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient and procedural characteristics and their temporal trends were compared between ULM PCI and all other PCI. In-hospital major adverse clinical events (ie, death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and emergent coronary artery bypass grafting) were compared using hierarchical logistic regression. Characteristics and outcomes were also compared against clinical trial cohorts.

Results

Of the 3 342 162 included patients, 2 223 570 (66.5%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 64.2 (12.1) years. Unprotected left main PCI represented 1.0% (33 128 of 3 342 162) of all procedures, modestly increasing from 0.7% to 1.3% over time. The mean (SD) annualized ULM PCI volume was 0.5 (1.5) procedures for operators and 3.2 (6.1) procedures for facilities, with only 1808 of 10 971 operators (16.5%) and 892 of 1662 facilities (53.7%) performing an average of 1 or more ULM PCI annually. After adjustment, major adverse clinical events occurred more frequently with ULM PCI compared with all other PCI (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.39-1.53). Compared with clinical trial populations, patients in the CathPCI Registry were older with more comorbid conditions, and adverse events were more frequent.

Conclusions and Relevance

Use of ULM PCI has increased over time, but overall use remains low. These findings suggest that ULM PCI occurs infrequently in the United States and in an older and more comorbid population than that seen in clinical trials.

Coronary computed tomography angiography for heart team decision-making in multivessel coronary artery disease

Aims

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) has emerged as a non-invasive diagnostic method for patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but its usefulness in patients with complex coronary artery disease remains to be investigated. The present study sought to determine the agreement between separate heart teams on treatment decision-making based on either coronary CTA or conventional angiography.

Methods and results

Separate heart teams composed of an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, and a radiologist were randomized to assess the coronary artery disease with either coronary CTA or conventional angiography in patients with de novo left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease. Each heart team, blinded for the other imaging modality, quantified the anatomical complexity using the SYNTAX score and integrated clinical information using the SYNTAX Score II to provide a treatment recommendations based on mortality prediction at 4 years: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or equipoise between CABG and PCI. The primary endpoint was the agreement between heart teams on the revascularization strategy. The secondary endpoint was the impact of fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CTA (FFRCT) on treatment decision and procedural planning. Overall, 223 patients were included. A treatment recommendation of CABG was made in 28% of the cases with coronary CTA and in 26% with conventional angiography. The agreement concerning treatment decision between coronary CTA and conventional angiography was high (Cohen's kappa 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.91). The heart teams agreed on the coronary segments to be revascularized in 80% of the cases. FFRCT was available for 869/1108 lesions (196/223 patients). Fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CTA changed the treatment decision in 7% of the patients.

Conclusion

In patients with left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease, a heart team treatment decision-making based on coronary CTA showed high agreement with the decision derived from conventional coronary angiography suggesting the potential feasibility of a treatment decision-making and planning based solely on this non-invasive imaging modality and clinical information.

Trial registration number

NCT02813473.

Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Distal Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Distal left main (LM) coronary artery bifurcation disease increases percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedural complexity and is associated with worse outcomes than isolated ostial/shaft disease. The optimal treatment strategy for distal LM disease is undetermined. We sought to determine whether outcomes after PCI of LM distal bifurcation lesions are influenced by treatment with a provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent technique, and if so, whether such differences are conditioned by the complexity of the LM bifurcation lesion.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The clinical and angiographic characteristics, procedural methods and outcomes, and clinical events through 3-year follow-up were compared in patients undergoing distal LM PCI with a 1-stent provisional versus planned 2-stent technique in the EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization). Among 529 patients undergoing planned distal LM PCI, 344 (65.0%) and 185 (35.0%) were treated with intended 1-stent provisional and planned 2-stent techniques, respectively. The primary composite end point rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 3 years was significantly lower in patients treated with the provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent method (14.1% versus 20.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.88; P=0.01), driven by differences in cardiovascular death (3.3% versus 8.3%, P=0.01) and myocardial infarction (7.7% versus 12.8%, P=0.06). The 3-year rate of ischemia-driven revascularization of the LM complex was also lower in the provisional group (7.2% versus 16.3%, P=0.001). In 342 patients with distal LM bifurcation disease that did not involve both major side branch vessels, the 3-year primary end point was lower with a provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent technique (13.8% versus 23.3%, P=0.04), whereas no significant difference was present in 182 patients with distal LM bifurcation disease that did involve both side branch vessels (14.3% versus 19.2%, P=0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with distal LM bifurcation disease in the EXCEL trial randomized to PCI, 3-year adverse outcomes were worse with planned 2-stent treatment compared with a provisional 1-stent approach, a difference that was confined to patients without major involvement of both LM side branch vessels.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

Left main coronary artery disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment

The advent of coronary angiography in the 1960s allowed for the risk stratification of patients with stable angina. Patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease have an increased risk of death related to the large amount of myocardium supplied by this vessel. Although coronary angiography remains the preferred imaging modality for the evaluation of left main coronary artery stenosis, this technique has important limitations. Angiograms of the left main coronary artery segment can be difficult to interpret, and almost one-third of patients can be misclassified when fractional flow reserve is used as the reference. In patients with clinically significant unprotected left main coronary artery disease, surgical revascularization was shown to improve survival compared with medical therapy and has been regarded as the treatment of choice for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Two large-scale clinical trials published in 2016 support the usefulness of catheter-based revascularization in selected patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. In this Review, we describe the pathophysiology of unprotected left main coronary artery disease, discuss diagnostic approaches in light of new noninvasive and invasive imaging techniques, and detail risk stratification models to aid the Heart Team in the decision-making process for determining the best revascularization strategy for these patients.

Effect of Age and Sex on Outcomes After Stenting or Bypass Surgery in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Age and sex contribute to determining coronary revascularization strategies for patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. We examined age- and sex-related differences in comparative outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) for LMCA disease. A total of 4,001 patients with LMCA disease (men, n = 3,100, women, n = 901) who underwent PCI (n = 2,615) or CABG (n = 1,386) from the Interventional Research Incorporation Society-Left MAIN Revascularization registry were analyzed. Patients were stratified into subgroups according to the tertiles of age (<60 years, 60 to 69 years, and ≥70 years) and sex. The primary outcome was the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke. During the median 6.3 years of follow-up, the adjusted risks for primary outcome after PCI relative to CABG were similar in patients aged <60 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 1.16), 60 to 69 years (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.80), and ≥70 years (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.22) with no significant age-related interactions (P_interaction = 0.57). The primary outcome risks following PCI versus CABG were similar between male (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.17) and female (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.50) (P_interaction = 0.65). Significant interactions were absent for age or sex and revascularization type for all-cause mortality (P_interaction = 0.34 for age and P_interaction = 0.99 for sex), repeat revascularization (P_interaction = 0.10 for age and P_interaction = 0.65 for sex), and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (P_interaction = 0.29 for age and P_interaction = 0.30 for sex). In conclusion, there were no significant age- or sex-related differences in comparative outcomes after PCI or CABG for LMCA disease.

Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery lesions: A single-center randomized trial

Objective:

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has developed as a preferable choice for optimizing the stenting procedures mainly because it will have good access to vessel size, lesion length, or severity accurately. However, it still remains unclear about the benefits of IVUS guidance in drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes with respect to IVUS-guided DES implantation for these patients.

Methods:

A total of 336 consecutive patients from December 2010 to December 2015 were enrolled in the study. The patients were then randomly assigned into two groups: IVUS-guided group (n=167) and control group (n=169). The primary endpoint was the incidence of composite major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The risk of stent thrombosis (ST) was chosen as the safety endpoint.

Results:

After a 1-year follow-up, the occurrence of composite MACE in the IVUS-guided group was significantly lower than that in the control group (13.2% vs. 21.9%, p=0.031), which might mainly result from the significant reduction in the risk of cardiac death (1.8% vs. 5.9%, p=0.048). Dramatically, the risk of MI did not differ significantly between the two groups (11.4% vs. 13.6%, p=0.478), though a tended reduction in TVR was observed under IVUS guidance (4.2% vs. 8.9%, p=0.068). There was no statistical significance between the two groups with respect to the risk of target lesion revascularization (IVUS-guided vs. control: 1.2% vs. 3.0%, p=0.239) and ST (IVUS-guided vs. control: 1.2% vs. 3.0%, p=0.246).

Conclusion:

The possible feasibility of IVUS-guided DES implantation for patients with ULMCA stenosis was supported by the present study. Larger and more powerful randomized trials were still warranted to research the whole benefits of IVUS guidance for these patients.

Percutaneous or surgical revascularization for left main stem disease: NOBLE ideas, but do they EXCEL?

Introduction: Although coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has traditionally been the standard treatment for significant left main stem (LMS) disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) is now considered an acceptable alternative. Areas covered: This article aims to summarise the key findings of the landmark clinical trials on LMS revascularization and the recently published ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization related to LMS disease. Expert opinion: It is unlikely that there will be a further large randomized trial aimed at addressing the issue of the optimum method of revascularization for LMS disease. Both PCI and CABG are reasonable revascularization options for appropriately selected patients with LMS disease. 'Heart Team' approach is vital to guide the management of patients with LMS disease, when there is obvious clinical equipoise and a mandate for complete revascularization. With an aging and increasing co-morbid patient population, clinical equipoise may not always be obvious, making extrapolation of clinical trial results to the 'real world' difficult.

Technical Approaches to Left Main Coronary Intervention: Contemporary Best Practices

Left main percutaneous coronary intervention is an acceptable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting, and in experienced hands, excellent procedural results can be obtained. A systematic approach to stenting and meticulous attention to detail are required. For most lesions, a single-stent provisional approach is sufficient, but for the more complex lesion, a 2-stent technique is required. Herein, the optimal approach to left main lesion assessment and percutaneous intervention is described.

Stent versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Multi-Vessel and Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials with Subgroups Evaluation

Background

Comparison between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using stents and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) remains controversial.

Objective

To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of PCI using Stents versus CABG in randomized controlled trials.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized trials comparing PCI using Stents versus CABG for multi-vessel and unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). 15 trials were found and their results were pooled. Differences between trials were considered significant if p < 0.05.

Results

In the pooled data (n = 12,781), 30 days mortality and stroke were lower with PCI (1% versus 1.7%, p = 0.01 and 0.6% versus 1.7% p < 0.0001); There was no difference in one and two year mortality (3.3% versus 3.7%, p = 0.25; 6.3% versus 6.0%, p = 0.5). Long term mortality favored CABG (10.6% versus 9.4%, p = 0.04), particularly in trials of DES era (10.1% versus 8.5%, p = 0.01). In diabetics (n = 3,274) long term mortality favored CABG (13.7% versus 10.3%; p < 0.0001). In six trials of LMCAD (n = 4,700) there was no difference in 30 day mortality (0.6%versus 1.1%, p = 0.15), one year mortality (3% versus 3.7%, p = 0.18), and long term mortality (8.1% versus 8.1%) between PCI and CABG; the incidence of stroke was lower with PCI (0.3% versus 1.5%; p < 0.001). Diabetes and a high SYNTAX score were the subgroups that influenced more adversely the results of PCI.

Conclusion

Compared with CABG, PCI using Stents showed lower 30 days mortality, higher late mortality and lower incidence of stroke. Diabetes and a high SYNTAX were the subgroups that influenced more adversely the results of PCI.

Main predictors of in-hospital adverse outcomes in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease

Aim. To evaluate the range of risk factors associated with adverse cardiovascular events onset in hospital period of follow-up in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) with multivessel disease (MD).

Material and methods. To the study, under the framework of prospective, single-center registry, the NSTEACS and MD patients were included. Depending on the strategy of revascularization, three groups were selected: staged PCI, coronary bypass (CBG) and PCI as the first with CBG as the second stage. As adverse cardiovascular events, the following were taken: death, myocardial infarction, stroke or transient cerebral ishemia, clinically significant bleeding by BARC, repeat nonscheduled revascularization of target vessel. 

Results. Analysis revealed the groups of factors increasing the probability of adverse cardiovascular events. Those are: (1) clinical and demographic  — older age, diabetes, postinfarction cardiosclerosis, multifocal atherosclerosis, chronic renal failure; (2) coronary and surgical — left main stem lesion, severe atherosclerosis by SYNTAX Score, high surgical risk by EuroScore II, revascularization strategy;  (3) predominance of low or moderate risk by GRACE comparing with high risk.

Conclusion. The results have confirmed high predictional significance of clinical and demography and coronary factors for development of adverse cardiovascular diseases. A significant finding of the study was the fact that in a hospital with surgery and endovascular treatment available 24/7, the intermediate and low GRACE risk in NSTEACS and MD is a factor of adverse cardiovascular events development due to revascularization delays if the risk is not high.

Percutaneous Left Main Coronary Intervention: A Review of Plaque Modification in Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis has long been recognized as a marker of increased morbidity and mortality. Current treatment algorithms for LMCA stenosis consider both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug eluting stents (DES) and coronary bypass surgery, each with advantages based on individual patient characteristics. Since the LMCA is the largest artery in the coronary tree, plaque volume and calcification is greater than other coronary segments and often extends to the distal bifurcation segment. In LMCA bifurcation lesions, larger minimal stent area is strongly associated with better outcome in the DES era. Plaque modification strategies such as rotational, orbital, or laser atherectomy are effective mechanisms to reduce plaque volume and alter compliance, facilitating stent delivery and stent expansion. We present a case of a calcified, medina class 1,1,1 LMCA lesion where intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and orbital atherectomy were employed for optimal results. In this context, we review the evidence of plaque modification devices and the rationale for their use in unprotected left main PCI.

Prognosis of Percutaneous Intervention of a Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis Without the Use of Intravascular Imaging

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the prognosis in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis one year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

Our study included 40 patients who underwent PCI for left main coronary artery stenosis without the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Patients were followed for a year, and the prognostic effect of PCI on a composite end-point of revascularization, new myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and on all-cause mortality was assessed in multivariable Cox analysis.

Results

The multivariable analysis showed a good prognosis in patients receiving PCI with a total event rate of 7.5%. The independent predictors for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were diabetes (p = 0.02). Other prognostic factors included in the model were gender, age, smoking, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, the complexity of the vessel, and ejection fraction.

Conclusion

PCI for left main coronary artery stenosis without the use of IVUS has a good prognosis after one year of clinical follow-up.