Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location

Clinical efficacy of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Ticagrelor is reportedly more effective than clopidogrel in preventing atherothrombotic events in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the optimal antiplatelet therapy strategy after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) is yet to be established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was performed using the prospectively-maintained database at our institution. Patients who underwent OPCABG were divided into the clopidogrel and the ticagrelor groups. Propensity score matching analysis was performed between the two groups. The clinical outcome was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as a composite of vascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke 1-year after surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 545 patients completed the entire follow-up assessment. After propensity score matching, 232 patients each were included in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups. The primary outcome occurred in 7.8 and 4.3% of patients in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively ( P =0.113). CYP2C19 variants (*2, *3, and *17) did not impact the clinical outcomes, regardless of the use of clopidogrel or ticagrelor. The rates of MACE were significantly lower in patients carrying the ABCB1 C3435T CT/TT genotypes in the ticagrelor group than in those carrying the ABCB1 C3435T CC genotype in the clopidogrel group (1.4 vs. 9.1%, adjusted P =0.030), as well as those carrying the ABCB1 C3435T CC genotype in the ticagrelor group (1.4 vs. 8.9%, adjusted P =0.036). The ABCB1 C3435T CC genotype was significantly associated with the incidence of 1-year MACE (HR=1.558, 95% CI: 1.109-2.188, P =0.011). Patients who experienced severe perioperative bleeding exhibited a significantly higher incidence of MACE than those who did not experience severe perioperative bleeding (14.0 vs. 4.9%, adjusted P =0.007).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the 1-year MACE between patients receiving clopidogrel and those receiving ticagrelor after OPCABG. Notably, The ABCB1 C3435T CC genotype was related to a higher risk of MACE.

Excimer laser coronary angioplasty without stenting in a 37-year-old man with acute coronary syndrome involving left main trunk: a case report

Background

Excimer laser coronary angioplasty (ELCA) is utilized to reduce thrombus in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the feasibility and safety of ELCA for patients with ACS involving the left main trunk (LMT) and bifurcation, as well as the safety of a stentless strategy with ELCA, are not well-documented.

Case summary

A 37-year-old man without any past medical history presented with chest pain. Electrocardiogram showed ST-segment elevation in leads I, aVL, and V2-V6. Emergent coronary angiography (CAG) showed a 99% stenosis from LMT to proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD). Intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) was initiated. Intravascular ultrasound revealed massive thrombus at the culprit lesion. Thrombus aspiration was not enough to reduce the thrombus, thus, we conducted thrombus vaporization with a 0.9 mm ELCA catheter. Coronary angiography after the procedure showed reduced thrombus with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow. Considering his age and the complexity of stenting the LMT, we completed the procedure without stenting. After the intervention, we initiated triple antithrombotic therapy. On Day 3, we removed the IABP. On Day 11, CAG showed no significant stenosis. Optical coherence tomography revealed ulceration, indicating the presence of plaque disruption at the proximal LAD as the likely cause of thrombosis. With improvement in CAG findings, we stopped heparin and continued dual antiplatelet therapy. He was discharged on Day 20.

Discussion

Excimer laser coronary angioplasty without stenting can be an option for the patients with ACS involving LMT, especially for younger patients who are suitable to avoid stenting on bifurcation lesions for lifelong management.

The everolimus eluting Synergy MegatronTM drug-eluting stent platform: Early outcomes from the European Synergy MegatronTM Implanters' Registry

BACKGROUND

The Synergy MegatronTM is an everolimus-drug eluting stent that may offer advantages in the treatment of aorto-ostial disease and large proximal vessels.

AIMS

To report the short- to medium-term clinical outcomes from the European Synergy MegatronTM Implanters' Registry.

METHODS

This registry was an investigator-initiated study conducted at 14 European centers. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularisation.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-five patients underwent PCI with MegatronTM between 2019 and 2021. Patients were 69 ± 12 years old, 26% had diabetes mellitus, 24% had moderate-severe left ventricular impairment and 59% presented with an acute coronary syndrome. 15% were deemed prohibitively high risk for surgical revascularisation. The target vessel involved the left main stem in 55%, the ostium of the RCA in 13% and was a true bifurcation (Medina 1,1,1) in 50%.  At 1 year, TLF was observed in 40 patients, with 26 (65%) occurring within the first 30 days. The cumulative incidence of TLF was 4.5% at 30 days and 8.6% (95% CI 6.3-11.7) at 1 year. The incidence of stent thrombosis was 0.5% with no late stent thromboses. By multivariate analysis, the strongest independent predictors of TLF were severe left ventricular impairment (HR 3.43, 95% CI: 1.67-6.76, p < 0.001) and a target vessel involving the left main (HR 4.00 95% CI 1.81-10.15 p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the Synergy MegatronTM everolimus eluting stent in a 'real-world' setting shows favorable outcomes at 30 days and 1 year.

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.

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.

Perioperative variation in serum FGF-23 level and its correlation with MACCE risk in unprotected left main coronary artery disease patients receiving coronary artery bypassing grafting

Objective

Fibroblast growth factor-23 (FGF-23) mediates vascular endothelial injury, inflammatory infiltration, and atherosclerosis, which could reflect major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) risk in several cardiovascular diseases. This study aims to further investigate the perioperative change of FGF-23, as well as its association with clinical characteristics and MACCE risk in unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) patients receiving coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods

A total of 226 ULMCAD patients who underwent CABG were enrolled. Serum samples of the patients were collected on the day before CABG, the third day (D3) after CABG, and at discharge; then, the FGF-23 level was determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The MACCE rate was recorded during a median follow-up of 25.5 (range: 2.0–46.0) months.

Results

The median, interquartile range (IQR), and range of FGF-23 level in ULMCAD patients receiving CABG were 717.0, 582.5–869.8, and 407.0–1765.0 pg/ml, respectively. FGF-23 level was increased in patients with both previous heart failure (P = 0.046) and chronic renal failure (P = 0.009) compared to those without. FGF-23 level increased from before surgery [median (IQR): 712.5 (574.5–879.8) pg/ml] to D3 [median (IQR): 844.0 (666.0–1072.5) pg/ml], then declined at discharge [median (IQR): 764.5 (569.3–986.8) pg/ml] (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, the preoperative FGF-23 level (P = 0.028), but not the FGF-23 level at discharge (P = 0.067) was positively correlated with the cumulative MACCE rate. Multivariable Cox's analyses found that preoperative FGF-23 level could independently predict cumulative MACCE rate [P = 0.015, hazards ratio (HR) = 2.940].

Conclusion

Preoperative FGF-23 level predicts higher MACCE risk in ULMCAD patients undergoing CABG surgery.

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.

PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: Does Disease Location Matter?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review attempts to specifically assess impact of disease location in left main artery on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The management of left main disease, once thought to be the sole province of cardiothoracic surgeon, has recently undergone a reappraisal by the cardiovascular medicine community. For many years, societal guideline recommendations advised bypass surgery as the "de rigeur" method of revascularization for unprotected left main disease. However, recent studies suggest that coronary intervention, especially with advances in drug-eluting stent technology, has mounted a serious challenge to surgical bypass in treatment of this disease. Although overall mortality rates are comparable for percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass surgery, left main disease location does influence long-term outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention more than bypass surgery. A patient- and lesion-centered approach to treatment of this disease may provide optimal outcomes.

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Diabetics: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting?

The choice between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial revascularization in patients with left main disease (LMD) is controversial. There is general agreement that CABG is appropriate for all patients, and PCI is acceptable for those with low-to-intermediate anatomic complexity. However, there is uncertainty about the relative safety and efficacy of PCI in patients with more complex LMD and with comorbidities such as diabetes. No direct comparison trial has focused on revascularization in diabetic patients with LMD, and thus conclusions on the topic are subject to the limitations of subgroup analysis, as well as the heterogeneous exclusion criteria, and methodologies of individual trials. The available evidence suggests that among diabetics, CABG is superior in patients with LMD with SYNTAX (SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and dardiac surgery) score greater than 33, distal bifurcation disease, or multivessel disease. PCI may be appropriate in those with less-extensive disease or those with limited life expectancy or high surgical risk.

The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

The question of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains among the most important questions in the treatment of coronary artery disease. The leading North American and European societies largely agree on the current guidelines for the revascularization of unprotected left-main disease (ULMD) and multivessel disease (MVD) which are largely supported by the outcomes of several large randomized trials including SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL. While these trials are of the highest quality, currently available, they suffer several limitations, including the use of bare metal and/or first-generation drug-eluting stents in early trials and lack of updated surgical outcomes data. The objective of this review is to briefly discuss these key early trials, as well as explore contemporary studies, to provide insight on the current state of coronary revascularization. Evidence suggests that in ULMD and MVD, there are similar mortality rates for CABG and PCI but PCI is associated with fewer "early" strokes, whereas CABG is associated with fewer "late" strokes, myocardial infarctions, and lower need for repeat revascularization. Additionally, studies suggest that CABG remains superior to PCI in patients with intermediate/high SYNTAX scores and in MVD with concomitant proximal left anterior descending (pLAD) artery stenosis. Despite the preceding research and its basis for our current guidelines, there remains significant variation in care that has yet to be quantified. Emerging studies evaluating second-generation drug-eluting stents, specific lesion anatomy, and minimally invasive and hybrid approaches to CABG may lend itself to more individualized patient care.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery for left main disease according to lesion site: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative data after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease according to lesion site (ostial/shaft vs distal) are scant. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate outcomes after PCI or CABG for ULMCA disease according to lesion site.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and adjusted observational studies that compared PCI versus CABG in patients with ULMCA disease and reported outcomes according to lesion site were systematically identified. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization) and all-cause death were the co-primary end points. Individual components of MACE were secondary end points. Sensitivity analysis including RCTs only were performed for each outcome.

RESULTS

Nine studies (3 RCTs, 6 adjusted observational), encompassing 6296 patients (2274 and 4022 treated for ostial/shaft or distal ULMCA, respectively) were included. At the 5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between CABG and PCI for MACE, death, or any other secondary outcome for ostial/shaft ULMCA lesions (MACE: hazard ratio [HR], 1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.27]; death: HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.84-1.46]). For distal ULMCA, PCI was associated with an increased risk of MACE (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.58), death (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.19-2.04), and revascularization (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.5-2.84). The benefit of CABG for MACE and revascularization was confirmed in the analysis limited to RCTs, whereas the benefit for mortality was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with distal ULMCA disease, CABG is associated with lower incidence of MACE and revascularization compared with PCI, whereas no differences in outcomes were observed for ostial/shaft ULMCA disease.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus: Cumulative meta-analysis

Previous meta‐analyses showed that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has lower all‐cause mortality than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the management of coronary heart disease (CHD), but the long‐term outcomes were not analyzed thoroughly in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). To perform a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the long‐term effectiveness between CABG and PCI in patients with T2DM and study the temporal trends using a cumulative meta‐analysis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Clinical Trials Registry for eligible RCTs published up to September 2020. The outcomes were all‐cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke. Nine RCTs and 4566 patients were included. CABG resulted in better outcomes than PCI in terms of all‐cause death (RR = 1.41, 95%CI: 1.22–1.63, p < 0.001), cardiac death (RR = 1.56, 95%CI: 1.25–1.95, p < 0.001), and repeat revascularization (RR = 2.68, 95%CI: 1.86–3.85, p < 0.001), but with difference regarding the occurrence of myocardial infarction (RR = 1.20, 95%CI: 0.78–1.85, p = 0.414), while PCI was associated with better outcomes in terms of stroke occurrence (RR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.34–0.77, p = 0.001). The cumulative meta‐analysis for all‐cause death showed that the differences between CABG and PCI started to be significant at 3 years of follow‐up, while the difference became significant at 5 years for cardiac death. In patients with CHD and T2DM, CABG results in better outcomes than PCI in terms of all‐cause death, cardiac mortality, and repeat revascularization, while PCI had better outcomes in terms of stroke. The differences are mainly observed over the long‐term follow‐up.