Therapeutic Options for Left Main, Left Main Equivalent, and Three-Vessel Disease

Diagnosis, performance and added value of assessing ventricular dyssynchrony by phase analysis in patients with three-vessel disease: A single-center cross-sectional study in Mexico

BACKGROUND

Three-vessel disease (3VD) is a cardiovascular disorder that affects the three main coronary arteries. Gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (GMPS) evaluates ventricular function, synchrony, and myocardial perfusion. However, the diagnostic performance of GMPS parameters to assess 3VD has not been fully explored.

AIMS

To assess the univariate performance capacity of GMPS parameters, and to evaluate whether phase parameters could provide additional predictive value for the detection of patients with 3VD compared to control subjects.

METHODS

We designed paired retrospective samples of GMPS images of patients with 3VD (stenosis > 70% of left anterior descending, right coronary, and circumflex coronary arteries) and without 3VD. A GMPS in rest-stress protocol was performed using 99mTc-Sestamibi and thallium and analyzed with the 3D method. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUROC), decision curve analyses and diagnostic test performance were obtained for univariable analyses and stepwise binomial logistic regression for multivariable performance.

RESULTS

474 Patients were included: 237 with 3VD (84% males, mean age 61.7 ± 9.9 years) and 237 with normal GMPS (51% women, mean age 63.8 ± 10.6 years). The highest AUROC for perfusion parameters were recorded for SSS, SRS and TID. For dyssynchrony parameters, both entropy and bandwidth in rest and stress phases displayed the highest AUROC and diagnostic capacity to detect 3VD. A multivariate model with SRS ≥ 4, SDS ≥ 2, TID > 1.19 and sBW ≥ 48° displayed the highest diagnostic capacity (0.923 [95% CI 0.897-0.923]) to detect 3VD.

CONCLUSION

Perfusion and dyssynchrony were the parameters which were most able to discriminate patients with 3VD from those who did not have CAD.

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.